One Good Move (But We Need More)

by hilzoy

I'm no happier about most of Barack Obama's record on LGBT issues than anyone else. That makes me pretty unhappy. But this, at least, is very good news:

"Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.

The guidelines will be in an updated federal handbook for managers and supervisors to be distributed and posted online in the next couple of months, and they could also be included in other materials for managers. They will list transgender people -- those who identify their gender differently from the information on their birth certificates -- as among several groups protected by antidiscrimination laws.

Though transgender men and women are not believed to make up more than a fraction of a percent of the federal work force, their inclusion in the discrimination guidelines is seen as a breakthrough by transgender and gay rights advocates.

"The president is making a very clear statement that transgender people won't be discriminated against," said Mara Keisling, the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, a group that has been talking with the White House about the new provisions."

Discrimination against transmen and transwomen is just wrong, and it's pervasive. Transitioning to a different gender is a tough enough process without worrying about whether you're going to lose your job as a result. And people can be pretty antediluvian about these things: they freak out about who gets to use what bathroom, etc., etc., ad nauseam. 

So this means a lot.

Autumn Sandeen notes:

"A fully inclusive Employement Non-Discrimination Act is going to be submitted to Congress this week by Rep. Barney Frank. Every LGBT American deserves these same nondiscrimination protections related to their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression that all federal employees are soon going to have."

I hope it passes. It's long past time.

Comments

[d'd'd'dave]

Discrimination is bad. Be transgender if you want. Whatever you want to do with your own body and identity is alright with me.

However, I think it is ironic that while declaring that he wants to decrease healthcare costs in one venue, Obama is opening a whole new area to public financing of gender reassignment surgery in another venue. It will be discrimination to exclude that type of surgery.

Ding. I get to pay for larry/lauras gender reassignment surgery because it would be unfair and discriminatory to withhold it from larry/laura if he/she couldn't afford it. After all, it is a human right.

[The Raven]

Wow, a troll.

It strikes me that when Obama has maneuvering space, he's quite progressive. Now, we need to change the Senate, so that he has some progressive legislation to sign.

[d'd'd'dave]

Troll: someone who is not a sycophant.

[d'd'd'dave]

It strikes me that Obama probably made this move in order to secure the vote of a democrat senator for his wobbling health plan. So, I wouldn't agree that he's progressive when he has maneuvering space. I'd say he's progressive when he's lost maneuvering space.

But I'm just a troll so what do I know.

[Warren Terra]

If it helps any, D'd'd'dave, I wrote a comment that both disparaged your initial comment and denounced naming you a Troll, but it appears to have been trapped in the filter - I guess two hyperlinks was too many, or something.

[Jesurgislac]

I'm no happier about most of Barack Obama's record on LGBT issues than anyone else.

Yet somehow, while people all over the blogosphere have been publicly criticizing Barack Obama for his failure to follow through on his promises to LGBT people, you've been keeping shtum.

And I think you must be quite a bit happier than, for example, the people who are actually being discriminated against because of Obama's decisions: since Obama's injustices towards LGBT people neither directly affect you, nor impelled you into writing any criticism of him. Not even in this post.

Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.

Tiny little trickles of semi-equality, lagging so far behind what Obama committed to. Better than nothing, but still: the military continuity you praised has meant soldiers still required to serve in the closet. And not one word from you against it.

[antrumf]

The whole "Until you have explicitly criticised said thing, I shall assume you don't really disapprove all that much" (or whatever)is pretty stupid, Jes.

I could play this same game with you: there are a lot of tragedies in the world, past and present. How many have you explicitly denounced? But I won't, because I try to assume the best intentions from people until I've been given a good reason not to.

[Uncle Kvetch]

Very good news indeed. The recent disappointments are no less stinging (and I hope Obama gets an earful when he meets with LGBT activists on Monday), but it's good news.

Ding. I get to pay for larry/lauras gender reassignment surgery

Yeah, it's all about you. But then again, it always is, isn't it?

[Observer]

Obama, the ultimate Big Daddy who just can't give out lollipops fast enough to suit progressive poutragers.

[tariqata]

Ding. I get to pay for larry/lauras gender reassignment surgery

Given the very small number of people who want gender reassignment surgery, and the presumable improvement in their lives post-surgery which should lead to better productivity and lower health care costs, it's always struck me as a reasonable public expense, actually.

[chmood]

Why would public health-care pay for gender-reassignment surgery? Isn't that, like, the ultimate in elective procedures?

[d'd'd'dave]

kvetch

'Yeah, it's all about you. But then again, it always is, isn't it?'

Yes. My schtick here is to be the personification of the other guy; the guy who is not in the room who you say will pay for whatever magic elixer of a govt program can be dreamed up next.

The deficits and public debts are testament to the fact that such programs outnumber the other guys.

[byrningman]

Why would public health-care pay for gender-reassignment surgery? Isn't that, like, the ultimate in elective procedures?

My impression is that most countries with universal health care will cover gender-reassignment surgery, and that considerable evaluation is required beforehand to ensure that the patient really wants to/meets the medical criteria for such a procedure. I know little about these things admittedly, but my impression is that feeling you are the wrong gender is a pretty nightmarish and compelling medical condition, and the number of people who want to change their gender for flippant reasons is probably similar to the number of interrogators who need to torture a terrorist to stop a ticking nuclear bomb. That is, in theory it's possible, in practice it's extremely infrequent.

[Uncle Kvetch]

My schtick here is to be the personification of the other guy

Not the term I would have chosen, but whatevs.

The problem is that on this particular issue I'm every bit as much "the other guy" as you are. I am not transgendered and I will never have gender reassignment surgery. And I work full-time and pay taxes.

So you see, you're not nearly as special as you think you are. I'm the other guy too, and I have a right to be as petty, small-minded, and resentful as you are. But I choose not to.

[d'd'd'dave]

Kvetch

Thank you for telling me you choose not to. I will cherish the knowledge.

I on the other hand will choose to no matter how tired you get of hearing it.

[A.J.]

Dave,

I'm not sure your posts here are doing that "other guy" any favors.

[Jesurgislac]

chmood: Why would public health-care pay for gender-reassignment surgery? Isn't that, like, the ultimate in elective procedures?

No, it's really not.

antrumf: The whole "Until you have explicitly criticised said thing, I shall assume you don't really disapprove all that much" (or whatever)is pretty stupid, Jes.

Yeah, I know. Go figure. I don't think it's the case that Hilzoy doesn't really disapprove of Obama's hey-they'll-vote-for-me-anyway, what-do-I-care-about-keeping-my-promises: I think she does disapprove.

But, for whatever reason, Hilzoy has chosen to praise Obama for what he's done, rather than criticizing him for what he hasn't. (If you recall, I got even more pissy about Hilzoy declining to criticize Obama over his failure to end torture and close down the American gulags.)

But I don't think Hilzoy can claim she's as unhappy about Obama's decision to support DOMA as - for example - Tim Coco and Junior Oliveira undoubtedly are - or as unhappy as Stephen Benjamin, to whom Obama has given a dishonorable discharge for being gay - and no chance to appeal to the Supreme Court. Hilzoy is free to ignore Obama's decision to break his clear campaign promises and enforce injustice: this has no personal impact on her.

She shouldn't try to claim she's anywhere near as unhappy about this as the people who cannot ignore Obama's "Change? Who needs it!" attitude: and I wish she hadn't.

[Slartibartfast]

to whom Obama has given a dishonorable discharge for being gay

I had absolutely no idea the President of the United States handed out dishonorable discharges. That's some world-class micromanagement for you.

[d'd'd'dave]

AJ

"I'm not sure your posts here are doing that "other guy" any favors."

The other guy doesn't deserve favors. He is only here so that we can take from him.

[d'd'd'dave]

Jes

"for whatever reason, Hilzoy has chosen to praise Obama for what he's done, rather than criticizing him for what he hasn't."

I hope children aren't trying to grow up in your home.

[Cyrus]

I hope children aren't trying to grow up in your home.

You certainly have a bizarre attitude towards politicians. Treat them like kings one minute (see the thread on the Saturday Night Massacre) and children the next. What explains this difference? Other than whatever best pisses off liberals, of course.

[Cynthia Marx]

I am a gay woman. Obviously, I support SSM and the repeal of DADT. But trannies creep me out, to be perfectly honest. Do we really want biologically male employees walking around the office in dresses and skirts? I think this pushes things to far.

Actually, I would go a step further and suggest that Obama is focusing on trannies in order to discredit gay and lesbian Americans. Instead of focusing on the millions of us who lead normal lives, he's focusing on freaks and drag queens in order to reinforce social taboos against (perceived) sexual deviance.

[jdkbrown]

"But trannies creep me out, to be perfectly honest."

But gay people creep a lot of people out, too. Why should your feelings of creepiness get any more respect than theirs?

[CaseyL]

Actually, I would go a step further and suggest that Obama is focusing on trannies in order to discredit gay and lesbian Americans. Instead of focusing on the millions of us who lead normal lives, he's focusing on freaks and drag queens in order to reinforce social taboos against (perceived) sexual deviance.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of troll, exactly, this one is. I have trouble believing s/he is really a 'gay woman,' because I have trouble believing a gay woman could be that narcissistic, small minded, mean spirited, and bigoted.

But all thing are possible in a world where there are still gay Republicans, so maybe Cynthia Marx is exactly what she says she is.

In which case, she's a garden variety troll, gay female subdivision.

[hilzoy]

d'd'd: Though I wish it were different, I think that this prevents employment discrimination for federal employees, rather than guaranteeing payment for gender reassignment.

Cynthia Marx: as jdkbrown said, gay men and women creep people out too. Yet I don't think this is a good reason to say, for instance: well, if they want to (sic) be gay, OK, but why should I put up with them bringing their partners to work-related parties, or have to see them kiss one another when their partners come to pick them up from work, or look at photos of their spouses? Ewww!

If transmen and transwomen creep you out, I suggest getting to know some, and asking them what it's like for them. They're not freaks, and they're not drag queens either.

[Cynthia Marx]

CaseyL,

I don't feel the need to prove my gender or sexual orientation to anyone. For the record, though, I am definitely not a Republican. Also, calling someone a "troll" is not a substitute for reasoned argument. I don't feel I'm "narcissistic, small minded, mean spirited, and bigoted" either.

I'm concerned with pragmatically advancing the cause of equality for gays and lesbians. How does this focus on trannies further this objective? How do you think this will be perceived in middle America?

[Cynthia Marx]

Hilzoy,

I think you're right that transsexuals should not be called "freaks" or "drag queens." I certainly don't like terms like "dyke" or "faggot."

But when did it become decided that gays and transsexuals have to be lumped into the same category. Being gay is not a mental illness (as has been recognized since the '70s), and being gay does not involve mutilating one's body. They're not the same thing. So the question remains, why is Obama focusing on transsexuals rather than gays?

[Sebastian]

Hmm, gay men creep me out, that is why it is so hot to have sex with them...

Ok, I really can't say that with a straight face. ;)

[rimshot]

Cynthia:

But when did it become decided that gays and transsexuals have to be lumped into the same category. Being gay is not a mental illness (as has been recognized since the '70s), and being gay does not involve mutilating one's body. They're not the same thing. So the question remains, why is Obama focusing on transsexuals rather than gays?

This is an odd way to put things. Maybe transgendered people and gay people don't make as natural a fit as political allies as is often thought (I tend to think that they are a fit but a somewhat uneasy one). But don't you think it is odd to follow that up immediately with "why is Obama focusing on transsexuals rather than gays"? If they aren't a linked category, isn't that kind of like saying "why is Obama focusing on the economy rather than Iran?"

[d'd'd'dave]

Cyrus

My comment about children was not about politicians. I was thinking of Jes' admonition to not praise a good action if one could find a bad action to criticize. I was thinking what a child might turn out like if immersed in a 'nurture' like that.

Sorry to be unclear.

[Jesurgislac]

Cynthia Marx: I'm concerned with pragmatically advancing the cause of equality for gays and lesbians. How does this focus on trannies further this objective?

Why are you using a derogatory word for transgendered people? If you want to be pragmatic about it, is using bigoted language going to make trans people feel any better about lipstick lesbians and straight-acting gay men going "Hey, you with the gender issues, go sit at the back of the bus!"

Well, maybe you're right: after all, there's nothing like using bigoted language to make it clear you're not with us - and by "us" I mean the LGBT equality movement, which has been fighting back since a trans woman decked a cop at the Stonewall Bar while the respectable lesbian and gay folk of the time ducked out the back.

[Cyrus]

I suppose it represents advances in the world when gay people can say "screw you, I got mine" about a different minority.

[hilzoy]

Cynthia: I have no idea why Obama is doing what he's doing. Also, I don't know how what Obama is doing will advance the cause of cissexual gay men and women, any more than I know how it will advance the cause of Tibetan freedom. It's a separate issue. And if I announced that I planned to regard any step taken to advance the interests of gay men and women solely in terms of its implications for Tibetan freedom, I think it would be clear what was wrong with that. Same here. Transmen and transwomen have their own interests, and those need protecting, whether or not doing so advances the cause of anyone else.

Being gay used to be classified as a mental illness. Now, it's not regarded as one, thank God. Being trans is still regarded as a mental illness, but that's as controversial as the inclusion of homosexuality used to be.

No one seems to know what accounts for either homosexuality or being trans, though it doesn't seem at all accurate to describe either as a choice (though I'm sure there are people somewhere who do choose both, since human nature is endlessly variable.) You say you are a gay woman: I'm sure that you can therefore imagine what it would be like to be forced into a heterosexual marriage. I suspect that even if you liked the guy, it would still be awful and false to have to act, all the time, as though you were something you are not. (Cf. Brokeback Mountain.)

And I imagine that if people asked you why it was so awful, why you couldn't just be married like everyone else, and enjoy it, you'd think: you don't get it at all. For reasons I did not choose, this feels just endlessly wrong to me; for reasons you did not choose, you do not share that; if I have to marry a man, I will be condemned to a constant lie.

Being trans is like that, only much more so, since it's not your marriage that feels all wrong; it's your entire body. And while you can find ways of getting away from your marriage for a bit, it's not nearly as easy to get away from your body. No nice little sojourns away from it all where you can just be a man (or a woman, depending), and have no one care.

If finding yourself attracted to people of your own gender does not count as a mental illness, as it shouldn't, why is finding that you identify with a gender other than the one you were born with, for reasons that are similarly not of your own choosing, count as a mental illness? In neither case is there any evidence of further mental problems: disorganized thinking, hallucinations, etc. (Except that transmen and transwomen have some of the problems following from their stigmatization and from being closeted that gay men and lesbians used to have: e.g., more depression.) So: why treat this differently?

And why, if you don't, should you regard gender reassignment as "mutilation", rather than as a way of bringing oneself and one's body into harmony? And if you have not yourself felt what it's like to believe that your whole biological gender is just wrong, why not try to imagine what it would be like for someone who does? I suspect that if you did, you might not begrudge them their relatively few protections and victories.

[Jesurgislac]

Cynthia: Do we really want biologically male employees walking around the office in dresses and skirts? I think this pushes things to far.

I am a lesbian, and this comment creeps me out.

Cynthia, so long as any butch gay woman or camp gay man can get fired because their employer doesn't like how they're dressing and acting, that's how long we'll have common cause with trans women and men.

Your comments actually remind me more of lesbian-feminists in the 1980s who argued that nice women didn't need to make common cause with gay men... and it didn't sit well with me then, and it doesn't now.

We need equality for all: dividing our community up into people who deserve equality and people who do not benefits only the conservative Christians who loathe us all.

[Cynthia Marx]

Sebastian,

We are linked categories in the public mind. (For example, Hilzoy thinks that letting transmen wear dresses at work partially makes up for Obama's opposition to gay marriage.) I wish that we weren't, but that's the reality of contemporary discourse. I oppose that link because I think it frustrates the aim of portraying gays as "normal" people.

FWIW, I think the link makes little sense because most transsexuals are "straight" in the sense that they are attracted to people of the gender opposite to what they perceive their own gender to be.

[Uncle Kvetch]

the LGBT equality movement, which has been fighting back since a trans woman decked a cop at the Stonewall Bar while the respectable lesbian and gay folk of the time ducked out the back

Damn straight. 8^)

Thanks, Jes.

I suppose it represents advances in the world when gay people can say "screw you, I got mine" about a different minority.

I hardly think it's a new development. The notion that being a member of an oppressed minority would make you more sensitive to the oppression of others is a pleasant one, but I've encountered enough racist and/or misogynistic gay men over the years to not put any stock in it.

[hilzoy]

Cynthia: I don't think it "compensates"; I was just aware that I couldn't possibly write about this without mentioning Obama's huge failings on other LGBT issues.

Fwiw, my understanding is that this is not true: "most transsexuals are "straight" in the sense that they are attracted to people of the gender opposite to what they perceive their own gender to be." As I understand it, the proportion of biological males and females who are attracted to members of the same biological gender is roughly the same among transsexuals as among cissexuals, which means that the majority of transpeople are attracted to members of the gender they identify with. (Or, to put this more briefly: transwomen are as likely to be attracted to women as cissexual men are; transmen are as likely to be attracted to men as women are.)

[Cynthia Marx]

Hilzoy,

While I respect your position I think you're being slightly disingenuous with your Tibet analogy. If you really felt that gay/lesbian and transsexual issues were separate, you wouldn't have lumped them together in your original post under the rubric "LGBT issues."

As for your argument about mental illness, you beg the question by assuming a symmetry between homosexuality and transsexuality, which is exactly what I'm arguing against. The fact that homosexuality was once considered a mental illness but later recognized not to be doesn't imply that the same will occur for transsexualism, unless you start by assuming that the two are the same.

As for mutilation, I think that's accurate. It's not as if we can just transmogrify men into women or vice versa. Instead, surgeons castrate the man and fashion a faux vagina.

[Sebastian]

"FWIW, I think the link makes little sense because most transsexuals are "straight" in the sense that they are attracted to people of the gender opposite to what they perceive their own gender to be."

Is this true? I only have a personal experience with 3, but two are MTF lesbians, while the other is a FTM with a woman.

While we are talking about statistical quirks: is there anything to support my sense that a large than normal proportion of deaf men are gay? If it is true does anyone anywhere have an explanation.

And we won't even talk about gay Marines. If they are represented in only the normal population percentages, then I've met every single one of them.

[Phil]

Do we really want biologically male employees walking around the office in dresses and skirts?

Actually, I think that, within the bounds of good taste, everyone should be able to wear whatever they want to work.

[hilzoy]

"I've met every single one of them." -- *giggles*

My base of personal experience is one (1) transwoman who was attracted to women. However, I did check this question out. Like all stats about transmen and transwomen, it's not wholly reliable, since there are obvious problems with locating a representative sample of transpeople, including the deeply closeted ones. However, fwiw, this seemed to be the consensus.

[Uncle Kvetch]

While we are talking about statistical quirks: is there anything to support my sense that a large than normal proportion of deaf men are gay? If it is true does anyone anywhere have an explanation.

Some years back I attended a summer linguistics institute where one of the year's themes was sign languages, so there were lots of deaf and hearing-impaired folk in attendance. And a striking number of the men among them were gay. And I do recall some discussion of the overlap, and I do seem to recall someone saying something along the lines of "yes, it's true, and there have been studies that have borne this out"--but alas, I have no cites. But anyway, it's more than just your sense, Sebastian.

[Jesurgislac]

Cynthia: I oppose that link because I think it frustrates the aim of portraying gays as "normal" people.

In the heterosexist and homophobic sense of the word "normal", you are perfectly right. Straight-acting gays will be treated better, just as light-skinned African-Americans were treated better than dark-skinned ones. But why aim for attempting to fit into the boxes our enemies will allow us to live in? We're not turtles.

FWIW, I think the link makes little sense because most transsexuals are "straight" in the sense that they are attracted to people of the gender opposite to what they perceive their own gender to be.

A majority of transgendered people are straight: so are a majority of cisgendered people. So?

The fact that homosexuality was once considered a mental illness but later recognized not to be doesn't imply that the same will occur for transsexualism, unless you start by assuming that the two are the same.

You don't have to have surgery to transition. Nor do I think that tbe fact that surgery makes you feel uncomfortable is a valid reason to deny equality.

Instead, surgeons castrate the man and fashion a faux vagina.

Now you sound like a pro-lifer trying to make people feel uncomfortable about late-term abortions by describing the operation.

[Gary Farber]

Do we really want biologically male employees walking around the office in dresses and skirts?

Actually, I think that, within the bounds of good taste, everyone should be able to wear whatever they want to work.

Seriously. I am neither female nor lesbian, but I missed the day in Feminism 101 class where we learned all about the crucial importance of reinforcing gender norms. Say what?

I'm unclear how the above statement significantly differs from "Do we really want biologically female employees walking around the office in pants and flat shoes?"

Oh, the horror!

[Uncle Kvetch]

And we won't even talk about gay Marines. If they are represented in only the normal population percentages, then I've met every single one of them.

And where does that happen, Sebastian? Just curious, mind you...

[Sebastian]

Another interesting statistic (in a not-so-fun way) is that FTM transgender people have one of the highest suicide rates of any major grouping. (Higher even than the rate of 'severely depressed' for instance) and much higher than MTF transgender.

I found that very surprising because my wholly outside and probably wrong sense was that it is much easier to pass convincingly FTM than it is MTF.

I wonder if it isn't something about not being used to testosterone weirdness if you haven't lived it your whole life? Or maybe that the post-op sexual organs aren't as workeable and convincing FTM?

[Gary Farber]

Besides, in the future, skants will be all the rage for some time.

[LizardBreath]

As I understand it, the proportion of biological males and females who are attracted to members of the same biological gender is roughly the same among transsexuals as among cissexuals, which means that the majority of transpeople are attracted to members of the gender they identify with.

Huh. Not that it's important, or that I had any basis at all for believing differently, but this is really surprising. Am I reading it correctly, in that you're saying that the majority of MTF trans women (I know this is redundant, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not confused) are attracted to women rather than men, and the majority of FTM trans men are attracted to men rather than women?

[JanieM]

I'm sorry, "testosterone weirdness" can't possibly be weirder than the other kind.

Though I got done with that a long time ago and have never missed it for a nanosecond.
;)

[hilzoy]

Seb: that is odd. For one thing, it has always seemed to me that while there are *lots* of exceptions, guys are a lot more likely to get all nervous about the possibility of being thought to be in any way female than women are about the possibility of being thought to be in any way male. So I would have thought that being MTF would be harder, at least harder to admit to oneself and then to accept, at least assuming that the operative factor is being brought up as a guy.

On the other hand, transmen seem often to feel invisible compared to transwomen, so that might factor in. But it's odd nonetheless.

[Jesurgislac]

Another interesting statistic (in a not-so-fun way) is that FTM transgender people have one of the highest suicide rates of any major grouping. (Higher even than the rate of 'severely depressed' for instance) and much higher than MTF transgender.

I think cisgendered men are much less likely to accept a trans man as simply one of them - this is anecdata, based on what a bunch of FTM men have told me, versus my personal experience of how accepting cisgendered women tend to be of trans women. I think that a trans man is much less likely to experience the wonderful relaxation of hanging out with people of the same gender, simply accepted as one of the guys, without needing to worry about a chance word or anecdote revealing him.

And that relaxation - same-gendered social interaction without worry - is something I think of as just a normal pleasure. Which trans people have to work hard and put themselves through so much to achieve.

[hilzoy]

About sexual orientation: I seem to have overstated things, at least if this is at all right. Reading it does make one see the difficulties of trying to come up with anything like statistics about a group many of whose members are closeted, and where things like "what you think being a woman/man involves" play a huge role. That said, the link doesn't support the idea that most transpeople are attracted to people of their biological gender.

Jes: that sounds right. How awful.

[Edward Haines]

As a very conservative US citizen, I find it difficult to comprehend the continued attempts to restrict rights of some citizens based solely upon factors such as their sex, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. I have searched carefully and find nothing in the Constitution denying full citizenship to gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or transgenders. Granted, our forefathers were not especially confronted with those issues. However, they seemed to believe that citizens should be entitled to equality under the law without regard to artificial differences.
With that in mind, it is time to allow all citizens not restricted through criminal conduct or physical disability to serve in our military. All citizens should be allowed to engage in personal contracts with each other (churches may designate these as marriage if they so desire). All citizens should be allowed to walk down the street without fear of being attacked or ridiculed because of their sexual identification. Certainly, it is grossly inappropriate to label any citizen of this great country as a "freak

[Sebastian]

"And where does that happen, Sebastian? Just curious, mind you..."

Heh, it sounds dirtier than you think. Well sort of. Everywhere really. Parties thrown by straight Marines. Gay bars of course. Parties thrown by friends. On the beach in San Diego. Ummm other ways.

This seems like a good time to recount one of my favorite anecdotes (no not the one where I went to the party thrown by the Marine who said that he didn't know any gay Marines--when one of his best friends and blatantly hit on me less than an hour before): the time my mother asked me how many men I'd slept with!

I told her "Ummmm, enough that you would think I was promiscuous". She didn't press further and I'm sure she is thinking something like 6...

Which isn't even the number of Marines I've, ummm never mind.

[Gary Farber]

"Certainly, it is grossly inappropriate to label any citizen of this great country as a "'freak'"

Except for these guys.

[Cynthia Marx]

I think cisgendered men are much less likely to accept a trans man as simply one of them - this is anecdata, based on what a bunch of FTM men have told me, versus my personal experience of how accepting cisgendered women tend to be of trans women. I think that a trans man is much less likely to experience the wonderful relaxation of hanging out with people of the same gender, simply accepted as one of the guys, without needing to worry about a chance word or anecdote revealing him.

I don't believe this is correct. Have you seen Snoop from The Wire?

[Gary Farber]

"On the beach in San Diego."

FWIW, I'm inclined to think that one is more apt to meet Marines in general in San Diego than, say, in Buffalo, New York, or Chicago.

[Cyrus]

My comment about children was not about politicians. I was thinking of Jes' admonition to not praise a good action if one could find a bad action to criticize. I was thinking what a child might turn out like if immersed in a 'nurture' like that.

Apology accepted; this was unclear. Jes was only talking about politicians, and your claim right here is false; Jes didn't make any universal admonition at all. I assumed, reasonably, that since you brought children up in comparison to politicians, you thought the two should be treated the same way.

I don't believe this is correct. Have you seen Snoop from The Wire?

Er, I haven't seen that myself, no, but you do mean a fictional character, right? This is where the whole "reality-based" thing comes from...

[Gary Farber]

"Have you seen Snoop from The Wire?"

I have, and Snoop isn't transgendered! She's just butch.

[Jesurgislac]

Cynthia Marx: I don't believe this is correct. Have you seen Snoop from The Wire?

It is slightly surreal that you should be offering the fictional experience of a butch lesbian as a counter to the anecdata of experiences of actual FtM transmen. You might not want to try that for real.

[Gary Farber]

I'm starting to wonder if Cynthia might be a troll.

[Cynthia Marx]

I don't know, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that women should look like women. And Snoop looks like a thug. The only time she wears gender-appropriate clothing is when she does that drive-by on the motorcycle.

[Sebastian]

Jes, your explanation sounds plausible. And interestingly it isn't even in contradiction with my observation. It might be easier to pass FTM yet the consequences for any little slip up might be much worse.

Gary "FWIW, I'm inclined to think that one is more apt to meet Marines in general in San Diego than, say, in Buffalo, New York, or Chicago."

Absolutely. But there aren't really that many Marines. Only like 200,000. And while it would be an exaggeration to say that I've met 2,000 gay ones it isn't hyperbole to say that I've met a couple hundred gay ones. Now as it happens I can think of quite a few reasons why gay men might be overrepresented in the Marines: the Corp has a reputation for toughness so you can prove you are a man, it is an easy way out of middle america if you are a gay teenager and feel the need to escape, it can be a hypermasculine way to prove you aren't gay, it is a homosocial environment, etc. So actually it isn't nearly as confusing to me as the deaf-gay link. Which I find completely mysterious.

[Uncle Kvetch]

it can be a hypermasculine way to prove you aren't gay

I've encountered this hypothesis too, but it was put somewhat less delicately: "Anybody that butch has got to be compensating for something."

[Cynthia Marx]

I know this won't be popular, but I also think that it's an insult to feminism for us to have to accept eunuchs as "women." These individuals have Y chromosomes and are biologically male. It is an invasion of women's rights to have to share bathrooms, etc., with them.

[Cynthia Marx]

I know this won't be popular, but I also think that it's an insult to feminism for us to have to accept eunuchs as "women." These individuals have Y chromosomes and are biologically male. It is an invasion of women's rights to have to share bathrooms, etc., with them.

[CaseyL]

I stand by my earlier remarks: the troll has not only continued to spout a lot of horsepucky, but has also hijacked the thread.

[PJ]

This thread has some godawful comments and I hate myself for joining in.

However, some things of which the "vigilant, hold-his-feet-to-the-fire, oh so very concerned Netroots (tm)" have taken little or no notice:

-- expansion of the drug war on the Mexico-US border.

-- the still unacknowledged "indefinite detentions" of undocumented migrant workers in state facilities.

-- the targeting of minority homeowners by subprime lenders.

-- the high incarceration rate of young men of color.

-- the disproportionate effect of the econ crisis on the urban poor.

-- the rise in membership in white supremacy organizations as being driven primarily by anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Should I assume that those in the True Left Progressive Netroots Nation don't care about these issues because they don't write about them as often as they write about, say, Afghanistan, or Gitmo, torture, or LGBTQ rights?

Because by these standards they fail as much as Obama does in their silence despite their stated agenda to be vigilant about progressive issues.

(Well, one caveat: I don't read DKos.)

Hilzoy can highlight whatever she wants. I don't remember her expressing an interest in this blog about being an activist re Obama's lack of movement to the left. She seems to call him out when she feels like it, and praise him when she feels like it, and neither is particularly distinct from her approach to his record in the past.

Cheers.

/back to lurking

[dr ngo]

PJ: their stated agenda to be vigilant about progressive issues.

I must have missed this statement. Could you cite it for me, please - with particular reference to Obsidian Wings?

Otherwise: WTF?

[JanieM]

byrningman: "I know little about these things admittedly..."

These are all readable and entertaining as well as illuminating; Kate Bornstein's book is hilarious and features my favorite book title of all time:

Conundrum, by Jan Morris

She's not There, by Jenny Boylan

Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us, by Kate Bornstein

I Can See Through You, by Jenny Boylan

Jenny Boylan is a professor at Colby College, and among other things her story of the reaction at Colby when she (at the time he) let her colleagues know what she was up to is interesting. I went to a reading of hers a few years ago and afterwards I asked her if there was anything written someone who had had a female to male reassignment that was anything like as acccessible as these 3 books, and she said she didn't know of anything, more's the pity.

[JanieM]

Is it only my system or is typepad extra squirrelly today? Most of the day I haven't even been able to preview, and when I can preview, mostly I still can't post. Even without links, tags, sets of asterisks separating thought trains...

Gnashing teeth.

Nor do I expect to be successful in closing someone else's open bold tag. :(

[JanieM]

As a gay person who is in every way (i.e. not just in relation to sexual orientation or gender presentation) too shy to be funky or flamboyant, I have always been extremely uncomfortable with the notion that "we" (whoever we're talking about) should behave ourselves, emphasize our mainstream normality, and distance ourselves from people who are "even more different," all in order to better our chances of the mainstream not being creeped out by us. There's something far more important than gay people being accepted as part of the mainstream, and that is that whatever we want in the way of safety, civil rights, and equality in the public square should *not* be contingent on being "mainstream" -- and therefore no one else's safety etc. should be contingent on that either.

The world just be just as safe for those who are "different" as for those who are, or can masquerade as, "normal."

[JanieM]

From an Anna Quindlen column on Jenny Boylan's first book:

"The funniest moment is when her doctor tells her that gay men and lesbians don't really have much in common with transsexuals. 'Yeah,' Boylan replies, 'except for the fact that we get beaten up by the same people.'"

[PJ]

Dr Ngo:

I was not speaking about ObWi. I was speaking about other blogs:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/supporting-public-plan-by-digby-i-was.html:
"I think it's pretty clear that netroots types are all more than willing to meet our responsibility to push and criticize and basically be a thorn in the sides of politicians to "make them do it."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/13/pressure/:
"criticizing Obama from the Left (as, say, Paul Krugman has been doing in the stimulus debate) expands the scope of the debate in a very important way that can only advance the Left's political goals and, incidentally, enable/force Obama to avoid the Center and Right."

http://www.openleft.com/diary/12758/the-case-for-distrust:
"Given all of this, perhaps we should step back from debating the future efficacy of policies for a moment, and instead have a discussion about why or why not progressives should trust the Obama administration. Such a debate is important not just in terms of theoretical orientation, but also in whether or not it is best for progressive activists to spend their time primarily supporting, or pressuring, the Obama administration."

http://firedoglake.com/2009/06/04/dana-milbanks-750-word-quota-and-the-future-of-progressive-activism/:
"More problematic is the way that progressive leadership is sitting things out, which is what Naomi Klein is addressing. Some may feel they have to -- if the membership of their organizations are not interested in challenging the administration, many feel they can't move without splitting them. But it's a self-reinforcing problem. If the usual progressive validators aren't saying anything, people don't perceive that anything is wrong. And it becomes extremely difficult to generate enthusiasm for activism."

If someone could find a post wherein Hilzoy declare something to this effect, then obv I'm wrong. But to my knowledge she hasn't expressed anything like this.

I think that this is a useful attitude to have. However, to pretend that any one person, even if they express a lot of the left's discontents, can be said to speak about ALL important issues with same degree of attention.

[PJ]

Whoa bold font ...

"I think that this is a useful attitude to have. However, to pretend that any one person, even if they express a lot of the left's discontents, can be said to speak about ALL important issues with same degree of attention ... "

is wrong. [Sorry. Had to complete the sentence.]

[Gary Farber]

"Most of the day I haven't even been able to preview, and when I can preview, mostly I still can't post."

For the past couple of days, I've had to switch to using IE to post to ObWi, as for some reasons the post and preview boxes have been greyed out in Firefox, no matter what I do.

I'm now pretty well convinced that "Cynthia Marx" is just a troll. ("Marx," hahaha.)

[Cynthia Marx]

Gary Farber,

"Marx" is a common last name. We're not all related to Karl. I don't expect everyone to agree with my point of view, but calling people names isn't helpful.

[JanieM]

I always use IE. And my version hasn't changed between yesterday and today.

[cofax]

"I know this won't be popular, but I also think that it's an insult to feminism for us to have to accept eunuchs as "women." These individuals have Y chromosomes and are biologically male. It is an invasion of women's rights to have to share bathrooms, etc., with them."

I think that pretty much confirms the under-the-bridge residence of Ms. Marx.

DNFTEC, people.

[cofax]

Paging customer service, paging customer service.

Can we get an IP check on "Cynthia Marx", posts of 2:44 PM, 2:37 PM, 1:04 PM, and 11:55 AM?

[hilzoy]

cofax: nothing to report.

Others: I never, ever write on everything I want to write on. I have a job. In the specific cases of DADT and the awful brief -- well, with DADT I got to it late because of other stuff, and couldn't think of anything to say other than: screw you, Barack Obama, which didn't seem like enough for a post. In the case of the brief, I started reading it, got caught up in trying to figure out one of the legal issues it raised halfway through, and before I knew it, a couple of days had gone by and other stuff had come up.

This always happens to me. Possibly it would be different if this were my full-time job, but it isn't. I also think I've become more reluctant to just post things with minimal commentary, for reasons I'm not at all sure of.

In any case: I don't ever infer from anything anyone doesn't discuss that it's something she doesn't care about. But it's specifically false of me.

[hilzoy]

Ack -- I hadn't seen the 2:44 comment when I responded to cofax. (Which is odd.) Banned now.

[cofax]

Thanks, hilzoy. I was becoming uncomfortable with the tolerance given to someone who was using bigoted language: "trannie" is not acceptable in any community I'm familiar with.

I appreciate the willingness to treat people as though they are arguing in good faith, but it seemed clear to me from the beginning that that individual... wasn't. Perhaps I've been reading too many blog posts about feminism and gender issues recently.

[Harald Korneliussen]

(I'll try to close that rampant italic tag. There, did it work?)
Sebastian: "Now as it happens I can think of quite a few reasons why gay men might be overrepresented in the Marines"

So can anyone who's ever listened to Village People :)

I'm a bit unnerved by this talk about gay men "acting straight" just in order to avoid discrimination. As if all gay men had a natural inclination to wear false eyelashes and join Eurovision fan clubs?

Most of the gay men I know (not a huge sample I'll admit: I don't really know all that many people of any sort) "act straight" in the sense that they can't really be told from their straight friends unless they're doing something really obvious, like kissing their SO. Also, all the "butch"* women I know are in straight relationships.

Just today there was a case on the front page of a national newspaper, about how a lot of MtWs* feel deep regret about letting the government "castrate" them when they were younger (their word, not mine). Even though there are careful procedures in place to avoid operating someone who doesn't want it really bad, it seems a lot of people regret it.

They say the government essentially told them "you're transsexual, you need to get an operation" - something the clinic in question strongly denies, and is clearly against the formerly mentioned safety procedures.

I think it wasn't the clinic, or government, but society who told them that. Well-meaning society, eager to give them a newly invented gender role.

Being a "butch" woman or effeminate man shouldn't automatically mean that you are transsexual or gay. I think trans-people would have an easier time if we fought that notion.

* I learned these words today - in this thread. Hope it means what I think it means.

[hilzoy]

I have deleted a comment that purported to be from joe from lowell, but that was from an IP address joe had never used before, and was, um, offensive beyond belief.

[xanax]

re d'd'd'dave@3:32am: "Obama probably made this move in order to secure the vote of a democrat senator for his wobbling health plan."

I know, dave, that several times on this blog you've been advised that the adjective you're looking for here is "democratic"... e.g. democratic senator. Not, as you seem to insist on writing, "democrat senator."

I realize your continued use of this chosen descriptor is partly simple stubbornness and partly your desire to provoke, however please consider this: If you wished to describe people who are Jewish and are also senators, and you wished to identify them according to their religion, you would (I'm assuming here) refer to them as "Jewish senator" not (assuming again) "Jew senator." You would do this because you would realize the term Jew senator (or Jew lawyer, or Jew judge) could sound offensive to those you are addressing (except of course for the anti-Semites in your audience who would doubtless pump their fists in the air and shout "Right on!" or "Sieg Heil!").

So unless it is your intention deliberately to provoke by using unnecessarily inflammatory descriptors, in the future - and for the last time, hopefully - please, Democratic Senator, Democratic President, etc. etc.

Thank you.

[Sebastian]

Harald, sorry for using jargon that isn't common in other circles. FTM is female to male transgender while MTF is male to female transgender.

[Gary Farber]

"Ack -- I hadn't seen the 2:44 comment when I responded to cofax. (Which is odd.) Banned now."

The 2:44 comment is still there.

"...the adjective you're looking for here is 'democratic'... e.g. democratic senator. Not, as you seem to insist on writing, 'democrat senator.'

This is, unfortunately, wrong. It's "Democratic" and "Democratic senator," not "democratic." "Democratic" refers specifically to the Party, and "democratic" is an adjective about a philosophy.

[JanieM]

Harald: "Being a "butch" woman or effeminate man shouldn't automatically mean that you are transsexual or gay. I think trans-people would have an easier time if we fought that notion."

Might as well change "shouldn't" to "doesn't."

Lots of people don't fit the gender norms of their culture and are nevertheless neither gay nor trans, and the converse is just as true.

[xanax]

Oops. Frigg's Law? (Thanks, Gary).

[JanieM]

I think practically everyone would have an easier time if we treated gender as a description and not a presciption, and got comfortable with the idea that there are lots of "genders" besides the two we usually think of. (Hence my delight with the title "Men, Women, and the Rest of Us.")

Maybe if we weren't so constantly bludgeoned with the idea that there are only 2 genders, only 2 ways to be in the world, people wouldn't feel forced to frame the choice so starkly. Whether "the rest of us" just means more points along a single axis, or a further expansion of the idea into multiple dimensions, I don't know. But "2" is too simple to fit reality.

(little comments is all typepad wants from me today....)

[hilzoy]

Gary: I didn't delete 2:44. It was a later one, best forgotten.

[JanieM]

"only 2 ways to be in the world"

should finish with "along that particular axis...."

[Gary Farber]

"Maybe if we weren't so constantly bludgeoned with the idea that there are only 2 genders"

Intersexuality. The spectrum.

These are largely centered around physicality, however, and people identifying to whatever degree as intergender or genderqueer are along a much larger spectrum.

I also like to point to brilliant novelist, and acquaintance, Raphael Carter's longstanding Androgeny RAQ.

Hmm, next two links will have to wait for next comment.

[Gary Farber]

Sheesh, I managed to typo "androgyny"; that was clever.

Raphael's Murk Manual is also very much worth the read.

The Fortunate Fall is a terrific novel, btw.

[xanax]

FWIW: Frigg's Law:
 "Anyone who corrects someone else's grammar on the internet has a greater than 90% chance of 1) being wrong, 2) including grammatical mistakes of their own in the text of the purported correction, or 3) being a dick. The more the grammar-corrector pursues their correction in a thread, the closer that percentage approaches 100%."

As Gary pointed out @5:24 above, guilty.

[xanax]

And I managed a typo in my html: Frigg's Law

[d'd'd'dave]

How about Senatorish Democrat?

[xanax]

Senator-ish or Governor-ish Republican, more likely. (Particularly in South Carolina).

[Hartmut]

That should/would be small s senatorish.
I think that is an actual word (although a slightly pejorative one) distinct from senatorial (that's what senators should be/act like).

[Jane]

Cynthia Marx: I am Christian and straight, and even I understand that transgender people are just people who had the horrible misfortune of being born into the wrong physical body--a misfortune for which there is a surgical cure. That you would call transgender people "freaks" is horrendously cruel and hypocritical. After all, pretty much every argument that can be made against gay marriage is just a facade hiding people's feelings that "Gay people are icky." How can you hold up that argument as valid when it comes to trans people? Sad.