Robin Reardon's Blog: Robin Reardon: Speaking of writing..., page 5

Mistaken Identity?

Hello, little girl. My name is… well, it doesn’t matter. What matters is how much trouble I'm planning to go to just to get to a place where I can attack you. Let me tell you all about it.

See, I grew up twisted. Blame it on abuse, blame it on a mother who was domineering, blame it on whatever you like. The thing is, I hate females. And something inside me tells me I’ll feel better if I beat you up, rape you, maybe even kill you. And I just came up with the best friggin' idea for how to get you alone so I can do horrible things to you. BATHROOMS!

So, here’s my plan. I’ll go someplace where I can buy a wig with long hair; gotta hide my sideburns, y’know? Trouble is I’m not real big on going into a wig shop and having anyone see me looking at women’s wigs, trying them on, or—worse—actually buying one. Maybe I’ll order online… but then I’ll start getting all kinds of spam from places where they think I’m a woman. I mean, I'm super confident. Don't get me wrong on that. It's just ... well, it’s gonna be a problem…

Never mind. Let’s say I’ve got the wig. Now I need to get hold of some makeup. Not just eye stuff and lip stuff, either. I mean, I’m a real man. Got all the parts to prove it, as well as the beard. And I ain’t takin’ no hormones, neither. So I need serious makeup. But… hmmm… gonna have the same issues with that as with the wig. Either I have to go someplace and be seen buying the stuff, or else I have to order it and have all these women’s sites sending me emails about what my skin tone is, what color lipstick is “in” this season.

Crap; nearly forgot fingernail polish. Gotta get that, too. And remover. Am I forgetting anything else?

Never mind. Let’s say I’ve got the makeup. I don’t have a clue what to do with it, so I’ll watch some online videos, and I’ll practice. Trouble is, the better I get—and the more like a woman I appear—the more my stomach turns when I see myself in the mirror. Yuck… Is that really me???

Never mind. Next is clothes. I sure can’t wear anything I’ve bought for myself as a man… Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, why is this so friggin’ hard? I’ll get clothes somehow. And shoes. And a pocketbook… Wait just a minute. I’m gonna have to carry a purse?!?!?

I’m not sure “never mind” is gonna cut it at this point. Because let’s say I’ve gotten through the terror I feel shopping for girlie stuff, and I've beaten my nausea into submission enough to actually get all the stuff I need, and I've managed to put myself together so that people will think I'm a woman. Let’s say I’m ready: wig curled and positioned perfectly, makeup smeared all over my face and making me want to hose myself down, plus-plus-plus size jeans on under a voluminous black… [gulp]… blouse, too-tight running shoes killing my feet with every step, shoulder bag in place. Let’s say I’m ready to go out into the world, make my way to… I don’t know, a bus station, maybe? A movie theater? A gym? No, a gym won’t work; I’d have to convince someone there that I was a woman in a one-to-one encounter or they wouldn’t let me past the reception desk. Movie theater, then.

I’m standing inside my front door. I’m ready. I’m going to do this. I’m gonna go out into the world and try to make everyone think that instead of this tough, aggressive, self-righteous, angry MAN, I’m actually just like the people I hate with an irrational passion that makes me want to damage them. I’ve got to fool everyone into seeing me as someone who should be allowed into a women’s public bathroom. I’m gonna do it.

I am.

...

I’m sure of it.
…
Crap. Bloody hell. I’m never gonna be able to do this. Excuse me a minute.
[Sounds of ripping fabric, shoes flung across a room, angry growls, the occasional wordless yell, and—finally—running water and loud, masculine sighs.]

There. I’m my true self again. Man, that feels better. Looks better, too, in that mirror that nearly made me upchuck earlier. Handsome guy, yeah? Any woman would thank her lucky stars if I pretend to make a play for her. And she’ll never suspect what I’m gonna do to her. Never in a million years.

If you're concerned about who's in public restrooms, watch this video from OurQueerStories.com and decide who should "go" where. And if you're cisgender, be glad you were not born in a body that was all wrong for you.

Subscribe to my blog

Release Day for Thárros by C. Kennedy!

My fellow author Cody Kennedy has written a book to follow the enthralling Omorphi, and it's available now! 

High school senior Michael Sattler leads a charmed life. Almost. He has great friends, parents who love him just the way he is, and he was a champion hurdler until someone took out his knee when they kidnapped his boyfriend. Despite the injury, Michael is determined to be in the USA Track & Field tryouts.

Christy Castle is Michael’s entire world. Still healing from years of abuse (this story was in Book 1, Omorphi), Christy's abduction by a predator has left him hiding a new secret as he tries to start his life again. Michael and Christy are focused on recovering from their wounds in time to attend their prom and graduate from high school, but then Christy learns that a fellow victim from his native Greece, kidnapped when he was, has survived. Christy will stop at nothing to bring him to the U.S. to keep him safe.

The prosecution of Christy’s kidnapper takes over his life and Michael's, and the struggle to return to normal becomes even more challenging. Christy's past continues to haunt them and, when the prosecution turns ugly and Christy’s new life is torn apart, only their unrelenting courage and determination can save them from the nightmare that threatens to destroy their future together.

Now available at Harmony Ink/Dreamspinner Press, Amazon US,

Amazon UK, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, and Omni Lit/All Romance eBooks.

Add Thárros to your Goodreads and BookLikes Lists.

Read Chapter One or Read en français.

FOLLOW THE BOOK TOUR AND WIN SIGNED BOOKS!

About Cody

Cody is an award-winning author who lives, most of the time, on the West Coast of the United States. Raised on the mean streets and back lots of Hollywood by a Yoda-look-alike grandfather, Cody doesn’t conform, doesn’t fit in, is epic awkward, and lives to perfect a deep-seated oppositional defiance disorder. In a constant state of fascination with the trivial, Cody contemplates such weighty questions as If time and space are curved, then where do all the straight people come from? When not writing, Cody can be found taming waves on western shores, pondering the nutritional value of sunsets, appreciating the much-maligned dandelion, unhooking guide ropes from stanchions, and marveling at all things ordinary. Among many other awards, Omorphi was a runner up in the 2014 Rainbow Awards, and Slaying Isidore's Dragons was a finalist in the 2015 Rainbow Awards. Cody does respond to blog comments and emails because, after all, it is all about you, the reader.

Find Cody on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr, Google+, Instagram, Ello, Goodreads, Medium, Booklikes, and read a free serial story, Fairy

Fear the Gay!

Although the discriminatory laws passed in recent days in North Carolina and Mississippi (with a close call in Georgia) claim to be about religious freedom, there is no question that the primary target is members of the LGBTQ community.

 

These three laws have subtle differences; NC's law seems to focus sharply on transgender individuals and bathroom usage; GA's law would have focused largely on marriage; and MI's law shoots squarely at the heads of all LGBT individuals. But they, and all recent "religious protection" laws passed in the last several months (such as Indiana, Arkansas, the list goes on), have the same goal: Protect good Christians from ... from what, exactly?

While there are nut jobs who blame LGBT people for everything from the attacks on September 11 to the war in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, they alone are not responsible for the current desperation evident in these absurd legislative efforts. There is a knee-jerk, "gut" terror gripping individuals who think they need protection. And when fear takes over, reason flies out the window.

So what are these gut-level fears? And how would reason mitigate them?

As a Christian pastor who knows the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, I'm terrified that I'll be forced to marry a same-sex couple!

Fear not. The U.S. Constitution says the government is not allowed to establish any religion, and that all citizens are allowed to practice (or not) the religion of their choice. If you want protection, here it is: both government and religion are protected from each other.

Here's how it plays out.

Two Buddhists walk into St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. To the priest in charge, they say, "We love this space! So beautiful. And we think the Catholic mass is wonderful and mysterious and intense. We want you to marry us here."

"So I take it," responds the priest, "that you will first convert to Catholicism, be baptized and confirmed, accept communion, go through pre-cana..."

"Oh, no!" the Buddhists laugh, "We think your god is a ridiculous figure. We aren't leaving Buddhism, we just want to be married here. In Latin. More mysterious that way."

"Sorry. We don't do Latin mass any more. And the U.S. Constitution guarantees that I don't have to perform religious services for anyone who doesn't adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic church. But I do hope you'll consider converting..."

See? Protected. One hundred percent.

I don't want to have to [photograph] [provide flowers for] [make a cake for] a gay wedding!

In the U.S., anyone who runs a business open to the public is not allowed to discriminate against a customer based on race, color, religion or national origin. So a black baker whose grandparents were lynched by members of a local church cannot legally turn away parishioners of that church, even if one of them was party to the actual lynching. In this case, fear is a reasonable emotion for the baker, but there's no legal protection from serving the murderer. (And, by the way, that church member's business cannot turn away the baker.)

What does a contemporary baker have to fear from serving a gay couple? Is their God going to rain down hellfire and brimstone onto the bakery if they bake that "gay" cake? Are they afraid that being gay is contagious? False fears, both; otherwise, there'd be a lot of mysteriously fire-bombed bakeries and a lot more gay people.

Massachusetts declared gay couple's marriages legal in 2003. The state is doing just fine, thank you; no hellfire, no bits of falling sky, nothing but a happier citizenry in which marriage is marriage for everyone.

I'm terrified that a man dressed as a woman is going to attack me in a public bathroom!

Oh, come on. First of all, if a man is going to attack you in a restroom, he's not going to take the trouble to dress up first. Second, a man who attacks women anywhere is a man who (on some level) hates women; a man like that is never going to make himself look like what he hates. Third, the "man" (transwoman) in question is not a man, she's a woman; her brain structure is female, regardless of what her birth certificate says. And would you rather have a transman (who, to your eyes, dresses and acts like a man but whose birth certificate says "female") in there with you? How would you know he wasn't a "real" man, there to attack you?

I could go on, but I think I've made the point. These frantic reactions are coming from a place of fear that leaves no room for thinking. And while the paranoid will always be with us, I see both blame and credit in the current mass hysteria.

Blame goes to the Cheney/Rove administration (W was just a puppet), which forced a lever into every event after September 11th, 2001 that promised even the tiniest fragment of fear. They dragged the fragments into the light, added lies and half-truths and out-of context facts, fanned the spark, and set fire after blazing fire to anything that could be made to look different from the average, white, straight, cisgender, Christian voter. I know this, because when the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated bans on interracial marriage, only about a third of U.S. citizens were in favor of the decision. Today, more than two-thirds of citizens have no problem with same-sex couples marrying and having children, and we see the Supreme Court deciding with them. The panic we see today is spawning frantic attempts to "protect" the fearful at levels far out of proportion with reality.

Credit? Well, that goes to the same people who are desperate to protect themselves from the phantom danger of "the gay" and "the trans." Because even though their desperation is ridiculous, they're demonstrating that there has been so much progress in LGBT rights that as fearful, non-thinking bigots, they feel so cornered that they're taking these drastic, ultimately hopeless steps.

Hopeless. That's next after fear. After that? When the sky doesn't fall, and the bakers who send confections to the weddings of any paying customer are doing just fine, maybe the people who've allowed themselves to be ruled by fear will realize how absurd they've been. But in any event, on this issue, they will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Subscribe to my blog

Ain't-a that good news!

Maybe it’s nothing more than delight at spring’s imminent return, but I’ve been noticing articles for several days now that—for a change—talk about good things that are happening in the arena of LGBTQ rights. I felt like celebrating them with you.

Gay Conversion Therapy Group Targeted In Historic Consumer Fraud Complaint
A group of civil rights organizations are filing a historic consumer fraud complaint with the federal government on Wednesday, charging that a group purporting to change people's sexual orientation or gender identity is engaging in deceptive business practices.

HMCS Winnipeg returns home following eight-and-a-half month deployment with historic first kiss

There is a time-honored tradition at Navy homecomings after a long deployment at sea. For the first time in history, that kiss took place between two men. And the crowd cheered!

Puerto Rico's Senate makes history by confirming lesbian as chief justice of Supreme Court
Maite Oronoz Rodríguez has become the first openly gay person to become chief justice of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. Rodriguez, who joined the commonwealth’s high court as associate justice in 2014, was confirmed by the Puerto Rico Senate on Monday (22 February). Lambda Legal hailed the confirmation, saying it “breaks barriers, and marks a momentous step towards achieving a judiciary that reflects full and rich diversity of our country.”

Company Says 'It's Time To Relocate' After Georgia Backs Religious Freedom Bill
There is a legal provision called RFRA, or Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The history and application in the U.S. of this provision is long and complicated; you can search details on the Internet, or check out this Wikipedia page. It's been used in a variety of ways to prevent the government from overrunning individual citizens' right to practice the religion of their choice. And it's been misused in a variety of ways, as well, in particular to allow individuals and businesses to discriminate against LGBT individuals.

Georgia-based telecom startup Decatur-based 373k had a clear, pointed response after the state's senate approved a measure that will allow business owners to cite their religious beliefs in denying services to same-sex couples: They’re shaking the dust from their sandals and moving to another state.

Charlotte, NC City Council passes a bill to ban LGBT discrimination

After more than three hours of impassioned public comment Monday night, in a 7-4 vote Charlotte City Council approved new legal protections for gay, lesbian and transgender people. The changes mean businesses in Charlotte can’t discriminate against gay, lesbian or transgender customers, in addition to long-standing protections based on race, age, religion and gender. The ordinance applies to places of public accommodation, such as bars, restaurants and stores. It also applies to taxis. The decision elicited cheers and hugs from supporters, many carrying signs that read “Facts Not Fear.” While the General Assembly could nullify this vote, it’s a historic step in the right direction—especially from a city in the conservative South.

Italian Senate Adopts Civil Union Bill
The Italian Senate signed off on legislation on Thursday creating a civil union status for same-sex couples after a bitter debate that dominated Italian politics for months. The vote was 173 in favor and 71 against, Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported. The bill must now must be approved by the Parliament’s lower house, but it is expected to encounter much less resistance there than it did in the Senate. Though LGBT activists say the bill made too many compromises, it’s a historic step in the right direction.

Charting the New Reformation: The Twelve Theses
In this essay, Christian Bishop John Shelby Spong lays it all out for us: From our perceptions of epilepsy to sunrise to homosexuality, our understandings of the facts of life have evolved through the centuries. We no longer say an epileptic fit is an example of demon possession, and we no longer see the sun as circling Earth. He says, “The explosion of knowledge over the last five hundred years in the West has rendered most of the biblical and creedal presuppositions to be unbelievable. They rise out of a world that no longer exists. Yet churches continue to operate as if eternal truth can be placed into these earthen vessels, proclaiming that in both the Bible and the creeds ultimate truth has been captured forever.” Now it’s time to examine sexual orientation in the same way.

Subscribe to my blog

Make your vote count... FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS

If you identify with or support U.S. citizens who don’t fall into the “straight, cisgender” category, you have an opportunity that is not likely to come again in your lifetime. And the rest of your lifetime is about how long the outcome of this opportunity will matter.

With the death of Antonin Scalia, one of the least LGBT-friendly voices on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) for the past thirty years is silenced. The question is what the next voice will say.

The news lately is full of talk about the debate between those Republicans who insist that Barack Obama should not be allowed to nominate the next justice in his last year of office and those who point to the U.S. Constitution, which says the opposite. But even if it weren’t for this debate—even if Mitch McConnell and his ilk were not trying to skew things their way—the chances of getting an Obama-nominated justice through the review and approval process are slight. Congress, controlled by the McConnells of the world, can reject every candidate put before them.

The chances of filling this open seat falling to the next president are significant. Even more significant are the ramifications.

The U.S. has made a lot of progress in the area of LGBT rights. But there is so very much more to do, and so very much of it is likely to find its way to a SCOTUS hearing, which means that the new voice will have a monumental effect on legal equality. We can’t let the choice of this voice be left to chance.

If you’re still celebrating marriage equality (as I am), great. But here are some sobering facts from the Transgender Law Center:

Only 41% of the LGBT population lives in states with highly favorable overall policy ratings49% of LGBT population lives in states with very unfavorable overall policy ratingsOnly 36% of LGBT population lives in states that prohibit transgender exclusions in health insurance service coverage63% of LGBT population lives in states that do not have LGBT-inclusive insurance protections

Diagonal lines: States where hate crime laws don't apply to LGBT

These ratings look at the legal status of LGBT populations in areas such as safe schools, child adoption/fostering, conversion therapy, religious exemption, hate crime, HIV criminalization—the list goes on.

As much as we’ve gained, there’s so much that could be lost. If any of the Republican candidates makes it into the White House, and that individual nominates Scalia’s replacement, the nomination will pass quickly. And the results will be ugly.

Marco Rubio thinks he’s not a bigot just because he would reserve a legal right (marriage) for a special group (heterosexual cisgender), excluding all others, on the basis of his own opinion—thereby not just defining bigotry, but also codifying it. He would not support anti-discrimination laws. He would not support ending conversion therapy and would probably encourage it. He would not support adoption/fostering by LGBT parents. He would appoint judges who would rule against Obergefel v. Hodges. He co-sponsored the First Amendment Defense Act, which discriminates against any household not headed by one man married to one woman. Follow any of these links to see what further hell Rubio would make for LGBT citizens.

Ted (a.k.a. Rafael Eduardo) Cruz thinks marriage equality represents a national crisis, and he has vowed to make reversal of Oberfefel v. Hodges a priority. He has become a magnet for LGBT-hate groups around the nation. He would love to reverse the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He has stated that LGBT rights interfere with the religious rights of Christians, and he will fight to reverse LGBT gains in a kind of holy war. Follow any of these links to see what further hell Cruz would make for LGBT citizens.

Donald Trump has actually reversed some of his positions on LGBT rights and equality since he decided to pander to Evangelical hate mongers, telling them they can trust him to do as they wish on these issues. He supports the First Amendment Defense Act, which discriminates against any household not headed by one man married to one woman. He has refused to state a direct position on issues such as adoption, bullying, and conversion therapy. If you can believe anything he says, do a search on his current stance on LGBT issues.

For a quick overview of all candidate positions, see the BallotPedia summary.

If you’re in the enviable position of living in an LGBT-friendly part of the country, please don’t be complacent. The Southern Poverty Law Center shows a marked and frightening rise in hate groups since 1989, including a 14% rise between 2014 and 2015. The SPLC put a picture of Donald Trump on their annual report cover, which should bring the point home to voters.

Make no mistake. Even if Obama manages to seat a new SCOTUS justice, chances are very high that another seat will come open in the next four years. If Obama’s nominations fail, and another seat comes open… you do the math.

Subscribe to my blog

Devilish details keep minority groups isolated

Different in a threatening wayDisturbingly different; alienTo perceive a person or people as alien to oneself

Each of these phrases defines “other.” I confess that I hadn’t known the word could be used as a verb, but it exemplifies perfectly the way far too many of us treat “others” of us whom we don’t understand.

As the author of books and stories about gay teens, I tend to notice situations in which LGBTQ individuals are othered. Examples are all around us, from the notorious Kim Davis to state-based Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs, introduced because “the advance of LGBT rights has encroached upon religious liberty”) to fanatics like the Westborough Baptist Church to most of the current candidates vying for the GOP nomination to the wanton murders of trans individuals (more last year than ever before).

But there are other others also being maligned, mistreated, and murdered. I’ll name a few: people of color (Black Lives Matter, anyone?); Muslims (even the peaceful ones); women (don’t think they’re being murdered because they’re women? Google it for any one of many, many, many examples); the elderly (huge problem; see the National Center on Elder Abuse; and, hey, just the fact that this organization exists…); people with developmental challenges (such as abuse of the autistic); people who used to live somewhere else (that is, immigrants); this list could go on for a long time.

What do these groups all have in common? See the three statements at the top of this post.

And what do those three statements have in common? They all play directly into the virtual hands of the lizard brain.

This is a part of our brains that is so primitive that we have it in common with lizards. The scientific term for it is the reptilian brain. It’s the seat of instinct. It’s non-congnitive and non-verbal. Bottom line: It doesn’t think. In fact, it’s impervious to reason. When something feels wrong to the lizard brain, it causes chemical reactions that result in the fight-or-flight response. No time for thinking. And something is wrong to the lizard brain if it’s different from the brain’s host. Different. You know, like, other?

Your lizard brain reacts immediately; as far as it’s concerned, your life might be in danger. Everything different from you—other than you—is wrong, a threat until proven not to be. And when a male, caucasian, Christian, cisgender, heterosexual encounters a black, trans woman? Whether she’s Christian or not, or straight or not, won’t matter; there are so many alarm bells in his head they crowd out his ability to reason, to think, even to speak articulately. He’ll probably pick up a baseball bat, or introduce another RFRA, or start another Focus on the Family-style hate group. Sometimes all this man’s lizard brain sees is the “other” person’s dark skin. Sometimes all he has to see is that there’s a woman having the gaul to publish her opinions.

The lizard brain’s effectiveness stems from one, extremely powerful tool: adrenaline. And when the lizard shoots adrenaline through anyone’s system, the immediate response is fear. Sometimes it’s full-out TERROR. All because of that “other” person’s existence, or their insistence on being treated as human.

This fear-based response to the other doesn’t care why the other person is different. Alien. Threatening. They just are. Comedian Russell Brand puts it like this (see time index 00:30): “An immigrant is just someone who used to be somewhere else.”

There’s a term familiar to... well, probably everyone: Divide and conquer. But usually the action of dividing and conquering comes from outside of the conquered.

In a recent blog post, Brandon Kneefel draws a strategic thread through various movements that, while they have important differences among them, are all striving for the same things: equality and acceptance. He highlights LGBTQ and Black Lives Matter efforts, but he notes that these and other movements have the concept of “other” in common:

“The past would give us perspective into generations of violence toward the LGBTQ community from policing forces … These policing forces also had a target before we LGBTs organized—people of color, immigrants, people outside the predominant religious faith. The ‘others.’”

Connecting the various movements’ efforts did not go over well with some of of the post’s commenters. For example:

“What do LGBTQ rights have to do with Black Lives Matter?” I'm a trans woman, and I'll say it, even if others won't. Not a GOD DAMNED THING!

What does one minority community fighting for equal rights and representation have to do with another minority community fighting for equal rights and representation..... I don't know, the connection is just.... so hard to make.

Some commenters understood. For example:

Why do people hate black? It is something inside of themselves. Have you noticed that a person who hates blacks, usualy hate gays and Jews also. It is so frustrating!

It's really very simple: We are all in this together, and no one is free until *all* of us are free.

There’s a takeaway for those who see themselves as a member of one or more of these “other” groups: Park those devilish details that make you feel different from other “others.” Stop isolating yourselves into separate groups, a practice that lets the lizard triumph. It’s time to lift your gaze and seek the allies who might not be in your specific group, but whose striving for equality and acceptance is identical to yours. Help each other. This way we will all win.

Subscdribe to my blog

Help an old cisgender, hetero lady out

I’ve been writing novels, stories, and plays about gay teens for over ten years, now. The reaction I get from people meeting me for the first time is usually something like, “Um… really? Why?” Part of my response goes to the injustices, the blind ignorance, and the naked hatred aimed at people who simply want to be who they are. My motto is the only thing wrong with being gay is how some people treat you when they find out.

I’d like to say that my work has helped society move forward toward acceptance, and many people tell me it has. But as this progress continues, I’m beginning to feel a little left behind. I’d just about wrapped my mind around the concept of transgender and was getting really good at using “she” and “her” for trans women, and “he” and him” for trans men, when I started to see articles about the movement—largely on college campuses at first—for a whole host of other pronouns being insisted upon by people who don’t identify with the binary categories.

In principle, I think this movement is wonderful. Reading Ashley Truong’s article, 6 Reasons Your Discomfort with They/Them Pronouns Reveals Unchecked Cis Privilege, I’m happy (and proud) to say that these reasons don’t apply to me. Well… except maybe the second; I can take my pronouns and gender identity for granted. And, as a matter of fact, I have no problem with “they” and “them” instead of the binary gender-based pronouns, if I know that someone wants me to use them in reference to them. I mean, to that person. My challenge is to remember to do it, and to remember that it’s that person, and not someone else, who wants me to do it.

Facebook has recently added “they” and “them” to the traditional binary pronouns that users can assign to themselves. That seems reasonable. But then we have a whole host of other pronouns that some people who see themselves as liberated from binary sexuality and gender want used in reference to them. The list of pronouns recognized at MIT for its students, for example, doesn’t approach being a full list of the options.

Another Facebook upgrade offers a list of 50 different gender options for users to select from. While I think this number is rather extreme, gender identity is not something I’m expected to accommodate in casual speech. Pronouns, I’m expected to discover and then remember.

So I might meet one person who identifies as genderqueer. So far, so good. But they don’t want to be referred to as her, him, or even they. This person, whose name we’ll say is Lindsay, expects any reference to be phrased like this: “Lindsay and I decided to invite eir friend Toni to join us when ey gets the restaurant gift certificate eir father gave em.” I’m going to have trouble remembering how to do this. And, worse, Toni wants the pronouns “e” and “es” used in reference to es. And I'm going to have trouble remembering which set of pronouns Lindsay wants and which set Toni wants and which other set Mackenzie wants...

Referring to points 5 of Truong’s article (actively working to keep the status quo) and 6 (considering my discomfort to be greater than trans and non-binary people’s comfort), I deny outright that they apply to me. Neither do I disrespect these individuals’ humanity (point 4), nor do I think I can dictate someone else’s gender (point 3), nor would I ever deny that someone else knows who they are better than I do (point 1). But—jumpin’ Jehosaphat—there has to be a better way.

History shows us that language changes when enough people adopt new usages and/or spellings. The key here is “enough people.” And why do large numbers of people effect these changes? It’s because the changes are easier: easier to remember, easier to apply, easier to spell, etc. And the key word here is “easier.”

There is nothing easy about the laundry list of new pronouns. There is also nothing easy about living in a binary society as a non-binary or trans individual. So I’m thinking we need to arrive at a happy medium. It would be great if we adopted a new set of pronouns that could apply to everyone as easily as we used to think the binary set did, but the chances of that happening are slim to none. I suggest the pronouns “they,” “them,” “their,” and “theirs” for anyone who doesn’t see the standard binary pronouns as applying to them. These words are already at the tips our tongues, and usage of them for individuals whose gender wasn’t known has been in the lexicon since Chaucer. I suggest we start simply and move into more complex usage if further change is needed to allow everyone their own identity.

I love that the force of this movement is so strong that straight, cisgender folks are the ones getting defensive. I really do. But I also want to avoid offending individuals like Rocko Gieselman who’ve been disadvantaged in very real and personal ways. And I’m not going to be able to do that if I can’t even remember what would offend them.

So... "they," anyone?

Subscribe to my blog

Hypocrisy, thy name is Mormonism

There is a wonderful group called Mama Dragon on Facebook, for members only, that supports Mormon and ex-Mormon families who have lost a child to suicide. Since the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) announcement last November outlining their draconian approach (see below) to LGBTQ church members, Mama Dragon has reported thirty-two suicides of young Mormons between the ages of fourteen and twenty, most of them from Utah.

“Ex-gay” “reparative therapy” (quotes used to connote the lack of veracity and validity for both terms) has been the cause of untold numbers of suicides, especially among teens. The organization TruthWinsOut.org has ample documentation about the suicides of LGBT individuals, and teens especially. According to The Trevor Project:

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for people aged 10 to 24.LBG youth are 4 times more likely, and questioning youth are 3 times more likely, to attempt suicide than their straight peers.Nearly half of young transgender people have seriously thought about taking their lives; one-quarter have attempted it.LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are 8.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide than LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection.

I’m going to repeat that fourth point: LGB YOUTH FROM HIGHLY REJECTING FAMILIES ARE 8.4 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO ATTEMPT SUICIDE THAN LGB PEERS FROM LOW-LEVEL REJECTING FAMILIES.

Mormonism is, to put it mildly, a very, very highly rejecting construct.

And what is the LDS response to the suicides that occurred on the heels of their November 2015 announcement? Here it is:

"Every soul is precious to God and to the church and the loss of life to suicide is heartbreaking," an LDS church spokesman, Dale Jones, said. "Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope.”

I can’t remember the last time I witnessed such profound hypocrisy. I’ve never seen such unrepentant weeping crocodiles. For who is it who’s causing the “challenges and pressures” for LGBT youth and their families? The Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints causes horrible strife that results in suicide among their own congregations.

Even the defunct “ex-gay” organization known as Exodus International closed its doors in 2013 with apologies—woefully inadequate thought they were—to the people whose lives they had ruined.

I have this to say to Dale Jones and his LDS cohorts: The deaths of these children are on your heads.

LDS NOVEMBER ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING LGBT FAMILIES

Children of same-sex couples may not be baptized or blessed. As adults, if these children want to enter the Mormon church they must be of legal age, may not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-sex cohabitation relationship or marriage, must disavow the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage, and must be granted permission from the LDS Office of the First Presidency.

Furthermore, Mormons in same-sex marriages will henceforth be labeled apostates, subject to disciplinary action (probably excommunication).

Subscrdibe to my blog

Not in my lifetime

It was 1978 when I met the first gay men I would come to know well. In 1983, across a table at a New York City sidewalk café, one of these men told me in hushed tones about the "gay plague." I'd never heard of it before. Neither of us knew then that within ten years it would claim him.

I remember the mysterious darkness that descended over the community at that time, a darkness that has lightened considerably by now but that still hangs overhead. Paralleling it, also lighter today than thirty years ago, is the progress of LGBTQ acceptance by the general populations of many countries, including the U.S.

If my gay friend had told me, in 1983, that within a little more than thirty years, marriage would be a civil right open to gays as much as to any straight person, I would not have believed him. If anyone had told me in 2003 that marriage equality would be the law of the land here in the U.S. within my lifetime, I would not have believed it.

And yet I’ve attended just such a wedding, the legal marriage of two men who seem meant for each other in every way any two people can be.

I wonder whether young LGBTQ people—say, younger than 35 or so—can have any idea what it took to pave the road they can walk. Because what we’re seeing is not just same-sex couples in their twenties and thirties who choose marriage. We’re also seeing couples in their nineties, like Vivian Boyack and Alice "Nonie" Dubes, together 72 years before they could be legally wed. And couples like Lewis Duckett and Billy Jones, together 46 years before tying the legal knot.

These older couples courted and lived in secrecy. For Duckett and Jones, it meant writing coded letters and using gender-based pronouns that did not represent them while Jones was in Vietnam. Boyack, a teacher, would most likely have been fired if this oh-so-foundational aspect of who she is had been discovered.

The Stonewall riots of 1969 might seem like ancient history to young LGBTQ individuals, but there are people still alive today who were there, people who were accustomed to being jailed for no reason other than the fact that they were gay. Today we see a gleeful street crowd gather to watch a choreographed public proposal of a man to his male partner. 

Are there still fallacies to be addressed? Yes, many of them. Are there still homophobic bigots whose terrified lizard brains drown out the humanity that should lead them to acceptance? Far too many of them. Is there more work to do before parents are no longer allowed to subject their gay children to the torture of “ex-gay therapy?” Oh, yes.

But has there been enough progress that some celebration is in order?

Never in my lifetime did I think the day would come when two women or two men could become legally married in these United States. I celebrate the progress so far every bit as much as I strive for more of the same.

Through a lens darkly

On January 14, the Anglican Communion sent U.S. and LGBTQ Episcopalians into the corner for a time-out. They did it because they don’t know how to bring a large part of the Communion into the 21st century. They did it because too many church leaders are trying to read their scripture through a dark lens.

This time-out consists of three years’ worth of the United States Episcopal church having no say in any internal matters pertaining to doctrine, and U.S. church members cannot be appointed to any committees, and anyone on committees already must participate no more than a fly on the wall, and (if that’s not enough) U.S. members can no longer represent the Communion to any organization or effort outside the Communion. U.S. church leaders must sit in the corner with their thumbs up their proverbial bums. Oh—except that might be a “gay” thing to do. Very well, then, they must sit there and suck their thumbs.

The January 14 decision came out of a four-day meeting in Canterbury, England, of 39 Anglican primates (bishops and archbishops, not chimpanzees, although…) —a meeting made necessary because many church leaders south of the equator are trying to read Biblical scripture through the wrong lens. They’re trying to interpret it without any understanding—or, at least, any acknowledgement—of the differences between life 2,000 and more years ago and life today. And in doing so, they’re making the egregious error of condemning LGBTQ individuals and of ostracizing all U.S. Episcopalians.

Let’s examine some of those life differences. First, there are the basic assumptions about life. The Bible doesn’t tell you that “only ewes can have lambs.” It doesn’t say that “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.” It also doesn’t say that “unless a man is present, no sex is happening, because all the essentials for a new life are contained in male ejaculate and the woman’s only job is that of baking the child,” but everyone alive when any book of the Bible was written knew this to be true. (See "Homosexuality and the Bible" by the theologian, Dr. Walther Wink.) So it doesn’t tell you that the problem with “men lying with men” is not that men are lying with men. It’s that any time any man “wastes seed,” he’s essentially killing someone.

It also doesn’t tell you that women are not really people, but it does use phrases like “the men of Sodom…both young and old, all the people from every quarter…” (Gen 19:4) which tells us that “all the people” consisted of men. It does show Lot offering his two virgin daughters to a violent, rapacious crowd, saying, “do to them what seems good to you,” because it would be “wicked” to send his male visitors outside (Gen 19:6-8). It offers no punishment—or even a reprimand—when Lot begets sons from those same daughters (Gen 19:30-38). It shows a woman and a young girl being thrown to a similar violent crowd, for the same reason (sending a man out would be “wicked”), with the crowd told to “humble” the females (Judges 19:23-24).

The bottom line? Those were different times. Life operated on different assumptions. And we cannot use a contemporary lens when we read words given to people living under ancient circumstances without running the danger of misapplying these supposedly sacred laws.

Let’s examine the question of homosexuality. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, there was no understanding of sexual orientation. The words heterosexual and homosexual didn’t exist until the 1860s, because no one saw a need for them, so "homosexual" does not appear in the original scripture anywhere. In Biblical times, the most common male-male action was not something that occurred between two guys who loved each other. Even in the famous example of Sodom's destruction, if we accept that the crowd wanted to rape the two male visitors Lot was harboring, there's no doubt that it was gang rape. In Biblical times a man raping a man was a violent, hateful way to emasculate the victim by treating him as a “mere woman.” This had nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation and must be recognized for the act of violence and domination that it was. And nowhere does scripture say that the destruction of Sodom or Gomorrah has to do with sex in any way.

And, while we’re at it, let’s examine the question of marriage. People who insist that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman typically point to Genesis 2:24, which follows immediately after the creation of woman. It says, “Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.” But I ask you: Who was Adam’s father? Who was his mother? And if there’s only one woman on earth, why is the term “wife” necessary? So the verse is questionable from the start. And, actually, it makes no mention of what man does not do (i. e., marry another man), because there is no other man on earth. So this verse cannot address life or marriage today.

So U.S. Episcopalians, and LGBTQ individuals especially, are being punished for the ignorance and hatred of some members of the Anglican Communion.

What would Jesus do?

We know what St. Paul would do:

I Corinthians

13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 13:10 but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with. 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. 13:12 For now we see through a glass darkly , but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. 13:13 But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three. The greatest of these is love.

If only.

Subscribe to my blog