Praise: EEOC on Transgender Discrimination

Around 20 April 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued a decision stating that discrimination based on transgender status or gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.  The decision allows transgendered individuals to file workplace discrimination charges with the EEOC.

Joanna Grossman provides an excellent analysis at Justia.  In part, she wrote

In a recent adjudication, the EEOC concluded that discrimination against a transgendered individual is sex discrimination.  To many readers, this conclusion may seem obvious, but in fact, most courts that have considered the anti-discrimination rights of transgendered employees have taken a narrower approach.

Under that narrower approach, transgender discrimination is only actionable if the employer acted on sex stereotypes to punish gender non-conformity.  But the EEOC takes the position that any sort of transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, because it inherently involves taking gender—and therefore sex—into account.  This is true even if the employer takes an action that simply reflects animus against transgender individuals or a desire to exclude them from the workplace, rather than a concern, specifically, about gender non-conformity.

In her article, Ms. Grossman gives a good description of the case.

The case that led the EEOC to reach its result is that of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who worked as a police detective in Phoenix.  In 2010, she relocated to San Francisco and began seeking employment.  At the time of the move, Mia was still presenting as a man, but had plans to transition to a female identity.  Her supervisor in Phoenix told her that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had an opening for a ballistics expert in a crime laboratory near San Francisco, for which she was well-qualified.

Macy spoke with the Director in that office by telephone around January 2011 about her credentials for the position, as well as the position’s salary and benefits.  According to Macy, the Director told Macy that she would get the position so long as no problems were identified in her background check, and that the position would be filled via a staffing firm, Aspen of DC.  After that initial conversation, there were a variety of back-and-forths among Macy, the Director, and Aspen, during which time her background check was underway.

On March 29, 2011, Macy informed Aspen via e-mail that she was in the process of transitioning from male to female and asked Aspen to share this information with the Director.  On April 3, Aspen informed Macy that the information about her gender transition had been passed along to the Director.  Five days later, Macy received an e-mail from the staffing firm stating that, due to federal budget reductions, the position in the ATF lab was no longer available.

On May 10, 2011, Macy contacted an EEO counselor within the federal government to discuss her concerns.  The counselor revealed that, in fact, the lab had not cut the position, but instead had filled it with someone else.

On June 13, 2011, Macy filed a formal discrimination complaint with the federal agency at issue, ATF.  On a preprinted form, she checked off “sex” and “female,” and typed in “gender identity” and “sex stereotyping” as the basis for the complaint.  In a narrative portion of the form, she wrote that she was not hired on the basis of “my sex, gender identity (transgender woman) and on the basis of sex stereotyping.”

So this discrimination is complicated with lies and an apparent attempt to bury the discrimination in time and paperwork.  Not a big surprise, but still disappointing in the twenty-first century.  Also not a surprise is backlash from the usual bigots.  Fox News quotes one notorious hater.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said the EEOC's decision is misinterpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"Those who are discriminated against because they are transgender are not discriminated because they are male or female, it is because they are pretending to be the opposite of what they really are, which is quite a different matter," he said.

Mr. Sprigg is, no surprise at all, wrong when he characterizes those who are transgender as "pretending to be the opposite of what they really are."  To understand what transgender people are, let's look at the glossary of the 2011 edition of Transgender Standards of Care.

Transgender: Adjective to describe a diverse group of individuals who cross or transcend culturally defined categories of gender. The gender identity of transgender people differs to varying degrees from the sex they were assigned at birth (Bockting, 1999).

There is nothing about pretending in this description.  One's identity is not what one pretends to be but who one intrinsically is.  If the discussion was of actors, then Mr. Sprigg would have a valid point.  It is not.

And we also have a response from prolific liar Eugene Delgaudio, via e-mail.

A major plank in the Gay Bill of Special Rights has just been enacted by Federal bureaucratic decree!

That’s right -- the Homosexual Lobby has found a way around the Constitution and the U.S. Congress to give special employments privileges to transsexuals.

Just a few days ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to redefine the rules already on the books to make it nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person.

Of course there is no "Gay Bill of Special Rights" and there are no "special employments privileges to transsexuals" and it is not "nearly impossible for any employers to ever turn down or fire a transsexual person."

In particular, someone who is transgender (what Mr. Delgaudio calls transsexual) can be fired for cause.  Being transgender is not cause.

The EEOC has taken an important step.  While no one is ever guaranteed employment, who one is should not be a deciding factor.  On the home page for the EEOC, the categories for discrimination are:

• Discrimination by Type
  • Age
  • Disability
  • Equal Compensation
  • Genetic Information
  • National Origin
  • Pregnancy
  • Race/Color
  • Religion
  • Retaliation
  • Sex
  • Sexual Harassment

Still missing is protection by the EEOC from discrimination because of sexual orientation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not enforce laws that prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do.

Organizations like Mr. Sprigg's Family Research Council and Mr. Delgaudio's Public Advocate are working on the federal, state, and local levels against laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.  It is important that we raise all American citizens to first class status by barring such discrimination.

Repudiation: PFOX Student Brochure

In early February, the group that calls itself Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) distributed about eight thousand flyers to Montgomery County Maryland high school students.  Here's the local ABC coverage



Last week Peter Sprigg, who serves on the board of PFOX and writes for the Family Research Council (FRC), a hate group as determined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times defending this hateful and lie-filled propaganda.

The controversy arose not because of its relatively innocuous content, but because of its source: an organization called Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, or PFOX. The flier states, “Every year, thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity,” and asserts that such people should be able to “seek help and information on overcoming their feelings.”

No, the controversy arose because of content that is anything but innocuous.  Let's go through the flyer and correct the lies.  The full flyer can be found at the PFOX website.

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) promotes diversity for the ex-gay community.
Ex-gays demonstrate that those with unwanted same-sex attractions can seek help and
information on overcoming their feelings. All individuals deserve the right to self-determination
and happiness based on their own needs, and not the needs of others. PFOX supports tolerance.

The premise of people being ex-gay is flawed.  A person is straight, bisexual, gay, or perhaps asexual.  What one does sexually is healthy when it is aligned with their sexual orientation.  PFOX is encouraging young people to disregard their sexual orientation in favor of what PFOX considers normal.  The American Psychiatric Association published a brochure, Let's Talk Facts About Sexual Orientation which says:

The desire to change sexual orientation often is driven more by social stigma or religious concerns than by medical or mental health concerns. Some homosexual people are able to change their sexual behavior (albeit with great difficulty). A change in behavior, however, is only one aspect of homosexuality and does not imply that sexual orientation has changed, particularly if desire remains.

Back to the PFOX propaganda.

Who are ex-gays?

Every year thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity through non-judgemental environments or their own initiative. Their decision is one only they can make. However, there are those in society who refuse to respect an individual's right to self-determination. Consequently, formerly gay men and women are discriminated against simply because they dare to exist. Ex-gays and their supporters are denied equal access and support, forcing them to remain silent for fear of negative reactions and disapproval.

Let's be clear.  Someone who says that they are "ex-gay" is not going to be denied employment, housing, the services of businesses, a pay raise, or anything else for saying that they are formerly gay.  The only negative reactions that they are likely to encounter are when they endeavor to influence others to turn their backs on their natural sexual orientation.  It is only in response to evangelistic behavior that PFOX is ostracized.

But aren't some people born "gay"?

According to mainstream psychological associations, there are no replicated scientific studies to support that a person can be born "gay." No "gay gene" or gay center of the brain has been found. No medical test exists to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is based on feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Some teens are labeled "gay" or other names or other names even though they do not have same-sex attractions. Appearance is not a reliable means to know what another person feels. No one should be labeled based on the perception of others. Name calling is wrong because the victim may begin to believe what others tell them about themselves, which may be completely false labeling and cause gender confusion.

Back to the Let's Talk Facts brochure.

The causes of sexual orientation and homosexuality are unknown. Studies have suggested both genetic and nongenetic factors. Sexual attraction (whether gay or straight), in fact, might have several origins including genetic factors for some people, environmental factors for others, or some combinations of these factors for yet others. Most mental health professionals believe that sexual orientation is determined for most people early in life, or even before birth, and therefore is not chosen. No particular pattern or style of parenting has been shown to cause homosexuality.

So, it is true that there is no gay gene, but that does not mean that one isn't born gay (a word that does not need quotation marks around it).  Sexual orientation is not simply a set of feelings that are easily mutable and is not based upon public declaration.  That human sexuality is more complicated than can be explained by a single gene or synaptic cluster does not remove genetic factors.

PFOX is correct that appearance is not a valid indicator of sexuality.  Homosexuals, unless they are deliberately dressing for display, look like everyone else.  Most gays don't lisp and many people who do lisp are straight.

PFOX is wrong about why name calling is wrong.  It isn't just about whether someone begins to believe what is used as taunts, although that is one problem.  Name calling is wrong because it is intended to belittle and denigrate who a person is.  The truth, or lack thereof, of the taunt is not the point.  The point is to damage the self-esteem of the victim.  That is always wrong.

"Gender confusion" is not caused by name calling.  The correct term is transgender, which broadly refers to someone born with the wrong set of sexual organs.  The American Psychological Association has a great deal of information in Answers to your Questions About Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression.  Here is a small section on how one knows if one is transgender.

Transgender people experience their transgender identity in a variety of ways and may become aware of their transgender identity at any age. Some can trace their transgender identities and feelings back to their earliest memories. They may have vague feelings of “not fitting in” with people of their assigned sex or specific wishes to be something other than their assigned sex. Others become aware of their transgender identities or begin to explore and experience gender-nonconforming attitudes and behaviors during adolescence or much later in life. Some embrace their transgender feelings, while others struggle with feelings of shame or confusion. Those who transition later in life may have struggled to fit in adequately as their assigned sex only to later face dissatisfaction with their lives. Some transgender people, transsexuals in particular, experience intense dissatisfaction with their sex assigned at birth, physical sex characteristics, or the gender role associated with that sex. These individuals often seek gender-affirming treatments.

Back to the PFOX propaganda.

If only one part of you has gay feelings, should your whole life be gay identified?

Many people would agree that just because one part of you feels a certain way, it doesn't mean your entire identity is that way. Having feelings of same-sex attraction may make you feel different. We all feel the need to fit in and be accepted. But no one should identify themselves based on sexual feelings alone. There is more to your identity than your sexual attractions. Thousands of ex-gay men and women had those very same feelings when they were in school. Get smart! Explore the origins of your same-sex attraction. Why do I have these feelings? Where do they come from? The decision of a prom date, a car, or whether to super-size those fries can be based on a feeling, but important decisions should not be made on feelings alone. In order to make an educated decision, you have to be informed! Sexuality develops over time. It isn't necessary to label yourself today.

As can be seen from the brochures of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, one's feelings are a reflection of who one is.  The purpose of PFOX is to encourage people to deny who they are.  Of course we are all more than our sexuality, but that is a crucial part of our identity as adolescents and as adults.

Telling teens to deny their feelings and deny their identity, implying that their feelings are less worthy than those of heterosexuals, is part of what leads to depression and teen suicides.  The American Academy of Pediatrics has studied the effects of the social environment on teen suicide.  PFOX is encouraging an environment that makes suicide more likely for LGBTQ youth.

When Peter Sprigg writes in his op-ed, "It is undeniable that some people experience same-sex attractions as unwanted" the part that he leaves off is that his organizations are creating the environment that makes people want to be rid of their natural feelings.  Mr. Sprigg complains, "The county curriculum on sexual orientation fails to even acknowledge that ex-homosexuals exist."  Ex-homosexuals do not exist.  One is gay, straight, or bi.  If one is gay and refrains from sexuality with others of the same gender, it does not change the fact that one is gay.  High school students, with the onset of adolescence, are just figuring out who they are; it is entirely inappropriate to be saddling them with guilt and encouraging them to deny feelings that are so new.

Mr. Sprigg and PFOX are wrong and their pamphlet is dangerous.

Repudiation: Linda Harvey's "Gay Abuses"

Linda Harvey runs Mission America, a supposedly Christian organization countering the dangers of witchcraft and homosexuality.  I've written previously about an item she wrote objecting to protecting homosexual students from discrimination.  She recently wrote an article for World Net Daily on the "Top 10 'gay' Abuses of 2011".

So, No. 10 on my list is the growing number of incidents where homosexuals are trying to put Christians out of business, get them fired, get them expelled from college programs and so on. Example: A bed and breakfast owner in Illinois is being sued for refusing to rent out his facility for a homosexual civil union ceremony and reception.

The link provided by Ms. Harvey is to Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, a Southern Poverty Law Center designated hate group.  The law in Illinois is that public businesses must not discriminate.  Mr. Walder, the proprietor of the bed and breakfast admitted to the Chicago Sun Times that he does discriminate.   Please note that Mr. Walder does not run a church and was not being asked to officiate at any ceremony.  Ms. Harvey, like Mr. Walder, does not believe in equality and does object to the laws of Illinois.  This is not about trying to put Mr. Walder out of business, it is about fair and equal treatment.

No. 9 is the assault of the sex change agenda on our children. Two lesbian women in California are raising their adopted 11-year-old son as a girl, a process they started when he was just eight. These twisted adults with their own apparent issues have lined up tragically misguided doctors to give this boy hormone -blocking drug therapy. We should all pray for this young boy and his adoptive parents.

The assumption that Ms. Harvey is using is that the parents are forcing this on the child.  The assumption is that lesbians only want to raise lesbians and thus want their son to be a daughter.  This assumption is belied by the article to which Ms. Harvey links that indicates that there are two older sons.  There is even a picture of Tammy, the trans-girl, with her older brother and both parents.

To understand more of what is happening for such a youth, begin with the American Psychiatric Association's Facts, with information on transgender persons beginning on page 46 of the pdf.  Then continue with the American Psychological Association's Helping Families.

My No. 8 incident of homosexual abuse is Macy's Department Store and its cooperation with sex-change anarchy. The clothing store fired an employee in San Antonio, Texas, who refused to let a man use the women's fitting room. She claimed her religious rights under employment law; Macy's claimed transvestite rights superseded faith. What happened to the Constitution? And what's happening to America? I hope America avoids Macy's after this anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-woman decision.

I've already addressed this issue and the lies told by both the employee and Liberty Counsel.

No. 7 includes a new arrow in the "gay" activist quiver: unapologetic violence. Vandals were caught on the security camera in an Oct. 15 attack against the pro-family group, Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, or AFTAH. Chunks of concrete with a threatening note were hurled through the window of the Christian Liberty Academy in suburban Chicago the morning before an AFTAH conference was held at the school. A homosexual radical claimed responsibility on the Internet, yet no arrest has been made. This frightening incident would have been headlines if the victims had been homosexual, but the media mostly ignored it.

The means the LGBTQ Community uses to combat bigotry are verbal, written, and sometimes loud.  Not violent.  The attack was by an anonymous individual or group ... probably not a gay or lesbian.  I wrote more on this at the time.

And abuse No. 6 is the slander and libel against New Jersey teacher Viki Knox. Last fall, special education teacher Viki was very troubled by a pro-homosexual bulletin board display at the high school where she taught. She shared her dismay based around her Christian principles with a few close friends on Facebook. Before she knew it, her comments were headlines in the New York Times, she was suspended from her job, and state and national homosexual pressure groups were leading anti-"hate" demonstrations at the school calling for her dismissal.

A teacher who discriminates in the classroom should be suspended from her job.  I wrote more.

Now, here's No. 5: the passage of S.B. 48 in the state of California. This fact-free legislation that no one ever thought we would see in America, calls for sweeping pro-homosexual indoctrination in the public schools beginning Jan. 1, 2012.. Children will be compelled to learn about homosexuality, and those lessons must affirm this negative, high-risk lifestyle. California parents are outraged at such a discriminatory mandate, but short of repeal, their option is to remove their children from the schools or exit the state.

No, the legislation is not fact free, does not include indoctrination, and homosexuality is not just a lifestyle.  See my earlier writings on SB-48.  The law is positive and good for all students.

No. 4 on my list is the global homosexual agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Just a few weeks ago, the White House and Secretary Clinton announced that United States foreign aid and support will be related to how well a country pushes homosexual behavior as a so-called "human right." This agenda is not backed up by U.S. law, and is another example of warped priorities and inappropriate use of authority by this administration.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are heroic defenders of human rights.  See my earlier writings on Secretary Clinton's speech.  Also my repudiation of Michael Brown's arguments against Ms. Clinton.

No. 3 is the deceptive "It Gets Better" video campaign organized by Dan Savage, a homosexual writer known for his sleaze and vulgarity, extreme even for a "gay" activist. This campaign exploits vulnerable children, as celebrities, regular folks and teens themselves post videos with the goal of discouraging suicide. That would be a worthy objective, if not combined with "gay" rights mythology. Kids are encouraged to stay the course, adopt a homosexual identity and thereby expose themselves to lifelong risk. Even the president has jumped into this effort, mischaracterizing this propaganda as an "anti-bullying" effort.

To understand the importance of Mr. Savage's It Gets Better campaign, it is probably best to read about the impact on children.  I wrote about this in reviewing the All Children Matter report.

No. 2 is the attack on the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have announced they won't defend this federal law against lawsuits initiated by homosexual activists. Who knew that presidents get to choose which federal laws to protect and defend? Obama even told the "gay" pressure group, Human Rights Campaign, that he favors repealing DOMA.

I have written quite a bit on the importance of repealing DOMA.  President Obama is correct in not wasting taxpayer dollars in defense of a law that is obviously unconstitutional.

And the No. 1 abuse of homosexual activism in the United States in 2011, was the implementation of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," allowing open homosexual behavior in our military. No one can yet know how damaging the repeal of the ban on sodomy will be – we can only guess – but there's no question that it will damage the character of our armed forces and undermine their effectiveness.

Again, this is an area where I have written a lot.  Let's clear up a few details here:  Sex is still private in the military.  One simply no longer must hide whether one is heterosexual or homosexual.  The initial reports are all good, the repeal of DADT is strengthening our mililary.

Ms. Harvey and other bigots will continue to work against equality.  She will continue to denounce anything that brings me on legal par with her as somehow hurting herself.  It is a big set of lies that she will continue to tell, continuing to break the 9th Commandment.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Praise: Keith Ablow on Marriage

I find myself quite surprised to be agreeing on something with Dr. Ablow.  During the 2011 Dancing With The Stars, which included Chaz Bono (possibly the most famous transgender man on Earth) this year, Dr. Ablow made a number of disparaging remarks on Fox News, implying that watching Mr. Bono might change one's inner gender or that transgender might be contagious or something like that.  No surprise that Cher came to her son's defense.  Dr. Ablow was also criticized at Psych Central and in the Atlantic in addition to numerous bloggers writing for and against his take on transgender people.

Moving ahead to the present, Dr. Ablow wrote an opinion column at Fox News yesterday about marriage.  When I read this I expected a lot of misinformation and material that I could use to blast him in a blog post here.  What I read was reasonable and intriguing.  After discussing the decline of marriage in the United States, he offers the following.

The solution is obvious: Get the state entirely out of the marriage business. No more marriage licenses. No more special treatment of married couples by the IRS or any other facet of government. No state ever had a legitimate claim to issue marriage licenses, to begin with, since marriage is a spiritual commitment and quite often, a religious one. And it is, fundamentally, an intensely personal one based in autonomy—until city hall gets involved and messes everything up.

>In the new paradigm I suggest, every couple wishing to get married would state that intention to their house of worship or their community of family and friends. They would take meaningful vows in front of gatherings of loved ones. Then they would—like knowledgeable and competent adults, rather than state-dependent, incompetent children—sign financial documents they generate together (while represented by attorneys or knowledgably waiving that right) which would govern how their assets should be pooled during the term of the contract and how they should be divided in the event they decide to end the contract. The state’s interest would be limited to enforcing laws about fair amounts of child support and fair visitation rights which must be included in such documents when children are born.

That’s it. The state would protect kids financially and emotionally from parents who fail to protect them. Otherwise, they would have no business getting involved in people’s marriages at all. They never had any business getting involved in them, to begin with.

Trust me, if marriage were thus structured as a union of heart and mind between competent adults making reasoned decisions, rather than abdicating their autonomy and infantilizing themselves, it would have a much better chance of surviving in our culture. 

As worded, this allows for same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage.  This even allows for transgender people to wed, despite Dr. Ablow's previous misgivings about them.  This would be a version of true marriage equality.  There is no mandate on any religion and couples who can't find a religion that will accept and marry them can turn to their family and friends.

The flaws in Dr. Ablow's proposal include the loss of special treatment by the IRS for married couples, not something that I have considered in the past and I'm not sure I agree with him on this.  I like the idea of the government using taxes to encourage marriage.  I believe that having more stable couples in society is beneficial to the whole of society. 

I'm surprised that the social conservatives at Fox are not upset in the media yet.  There are a few negative responses.  From Law To Grace denies the premise, failing marriage.  Most of the responses in the blogosphere are from the liberals.  It is an interesting idea.

Praise: Jackson County Teacher's Approach to Bullying

A teacher in Jackson County, Wisconsin is writing a blog called Together For Jackson County Kids with an entry less than a week ago on gender and bullying.  This is particularly insightful.  Here are a few bits selected from that post.

Gender is not a subject that I would have broached in primary grades a few years ago. In fact, I remember scoffing with colleagues when we heard about a young kindergarten teacher who taught gender-related curriculum. We thought her lessons were a waste of instructional time and laughed at her “girl and boy” lessons.

I will confess that when I left industry to become a teacher I thought that gender topics were feel-good nonsense.  Boys and girls knew what they were and it wasn't something I had to worry about.  At the time I knew nothing about transgender issues and nothing about gender identity issues.  I still probably know less than I should ... it is hard to understand such topics if you are simply comfortable with the body you were born into.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t until I had a child dealing with gender variance (defined as “behavior or gender expression that does not conform to dominant gender norms of male and female”) in my classroom that I realized how important it is to teach about gender and break down gender stereotypes. Why did I wait so long?

While I taught primary education early in my education career, I have focused on secondary and tertiary schools for well over a decade.  The curricular issues are different when confronting stereotyping among teenagers and young adults.  The Jackson County teacher is at a much better point to reduce prejudice and bigotry, but a much more delicate point in terms of balancing those lessons with the demands of parents and the community.  My guess is that he or she waited so long because political pressure leads one to avoid such controversies.

The post continues with several classroom stories, which I encourage you to read in detail.  The second story involves an exploration of expected toys and apparel for males versus females.  Let's pick up at nail polish.

But when we got to nail polish and makeup the children were unsure. “There are some very famous rock ’n’ roll bands,” I said, “and the men in those bands wear a lot of makeup.” Some of the children gasped.

Then Isabela raised her hand: “Sometimes my uncle wears black nail polish.” The students took a moment to think about this.

“My cousin wears nail polish, too!” said another student. Soon many students were eager to share examples of how people pushed the limits on gender. Our school engineer, Ms. Joan, drove a motorcycle. Jeremy liked to dance. I could see the gears turning in their brains as the gender lines started to blur.

This is where things get dangerous for a teacher.  The "gender lines started to blur" will have some parents upset.  This is despite the fact that in a few years many teenage boys and girls will experiment with nail polish, with styled hair, and additional things which once fit into only one gender role or the other.

Wearing nail polish for a boy or not doing so for a girl is not a sign of gender variance these days.  For most teens it is simply in the range of normal.  The good news for students who are gender queer is that the normal range makes it safer for them to have the time and space to figure out who they are.  A decade ago (where I was teaching at the time) dressing goth was considered slightly radical. The world has changed and goth is now boring for many teens.

I also became very aware of using the phrase “boys and girls” to address my students. Instead, I used gender-neutral terms like “students” or “children.” At first, the more I thought about it, the more often I’d say “boys and girls.” I tried not to be too hard on myself when I slipped, and eventually I got out of the habit and used “students” regularly.

This is wise.  I made a mistake during my first year of teaching by addressing a boy as ma'am.  Oops.  I now address a full class as "ladies and gentlemen" or, if students object to that, "gentleladies and gentlemen".  I ask individual students how they prefer to be addressed.  Oddly, this is a surprising question to most of my students.  They do not expect to be consulted on it.  This does not solve all of the problems.  One of the nice things about the Navy was that all officers were to be addressed as "Sir", without regard to gender.  Simple is good.

I have just begun to empathize with the challenges that gender-variant children deal with. For some it may seem inappropriate to address these issues in the classroom. My job is not to answer the questions “Why?” or “How?” Allie is the way she is (although asking those questions and doing some research in order to better understand was definitely part of my process). My job is not to judge, but to teach, and I can’t teach if the students in my class are distracted or uncomfortable. My job is also about preparing students to be a part of our society, ready to work and play with all kinds of people. I found that teaching about gender stereotypes is another social justice issue that needs to be addressed, like racism or immigrant rights, or protecting the environment.

These are all tough issues.  My compliments on the start of this blog.  Again, reading the full article will flesh out "Allie" and help the rest make sense.  The suggested resource at the bottom of the page, Accepting Dads, is also worth your time if you are working with younger kids.

Repudiation: Bigotry of Michael Brown

Michael Brown is a so-called Messianic Jew (not a real religion ... if you believe in Jesus as God, you are not Jewish) and wrote a column posted yesterday at Town Hall with many lies about homosexuality and ugly words about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On December 6th, in a speech in Geneva marking international human rights day, Secretary of State Clinton called for all nations to embrace the goals of LGBT activism, declaring that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights,” and that, “It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished.”

Ms. Clinton's speech was insightful and eloquent.  If you have not listened to or read her speech, please take the time to read it now.

Unfortunately, her speech, which was hailed by gay activists worldwide, was an exercise in hypocrisy, not to mention an insult to several billion people worldwide.

No, Sec. Clinton is not the hypocrite.  Any insult is due to ongoing violation of the rights of others, not insult to who a person is.  An important paragraph from Ms. Clinton's speech before returning to Mr. Brown's objections:

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

Again, please read the entire speech if you have not.  Sec. Clinton was careful to be respectful of all people.  Mr. Brown is insulted by his own choice, not her words.

She rightly stated that, “It is [a] violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave.” But this was only the tip of the iceberg.

Mrs. Clinton had the audacity to compare religious or cultural objections to homosexual practice to “the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation,” as if the religious and moral objection to men having sex with men is somehow equivalent to the Muslim practice of honor killings or the Hindu practice of burning widows.

So, what did Ms. Clinton say in context?

It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives. And it is a violation of human rights when life-saving care is withheld from people because they are gay, or equal access to justice is denied to people because they are gay, or public spaces are out of bounds to people because they are gay. No matter what we look like, where we come from, or who we are, we are all equally entitled to our human rights and dignity.

The comparison is direct and germane.  If Mr. Brown objects "to men having sex with men", then he should not have sex with men.  That was not the point of Sec. Clinton's comparison.

“In each of these cases,” she said, “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.” And she said this in our name, as Americans.

The cases are drawing a parallel to violence against women, murder, and slavery.  Yes, in our now as Americans.

She stated that “opinions [on homosexuality] are still evolving”, just as opinions evolved over time with slavery, and “what was once justified as sanctioned by God is now properly reviled as an unconscionable violation of human rights.”

In other words, if you have an issue with the lewd sexual displays at your city’s gay pride parade, or if you’re not comfortable with a man who dresses as a woman using the ladies bathroom, or if you don’t want to see a kid raised by two lesbians and thereby deprived of having a father, or if you believe that God made men to be with women, then you are the moral equivalent of a slave trader or a slave owner.

No, those are not other words that have the same meaning.  First, those who are transgender are not "a man who dresses as a woman".  That would be a transvestite not a transgender person.  Second, children raised by parents of the same gender tend to do as well as those raised by parents of the opposite gender.  The problem of having "to see a kid raised by two lesbians" is Mr. Brown's problem, not a problem for that kid.  Third, moral equivalency is not in belief but in action.  Mr. Brown is welcome to believe what he wants, but denying human rights is where the moral equivalency to slavery is accurate.

All this (and more) came from the lips of our Secretary of State at the same time that President Obama issued a memorandum instructing government officials to “ensure that US diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, and transgender persons” around the world. (The president’s memorandum is far-reaching and should be read carefully.)

Yes.  I wrote an article praising President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

There was an immediate reaction from African leaders, and the Christian Science Monitor noted that, “The enshrinement of equal rights for homosexuals into US foreign policy activities has drawn quick ire from African nations, with one senior figure saying the notion is ‘abhorrent’ across the continent.”

As expressed by Uganda’s John Nagenda, a senior adviser to the president, “I don’t like her tone, at all. . . I’m amazed she’s not looking to her own country and lecturing them first, before she comes to say these things which she knows are very sensitive issues in so many parts of the world, not least Africa.”

Considering that being homosexual is a criminal offense in Uganda, this reaction should not be a surprise.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton stated that America still had a way to go on the issue of “gay rights,” but it is sheer arrogance to claim that the religious and moral views of several billion human beings must change. Based on what criteria?

The criteria are human rights.  It is not arrogant to call for human rights for all humans.

By all means we should champion the equal protection of all human beings, regardless of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. But that is only a small part of our government’s agenda. The greater goal is the complete normalization and even celebration of everything LGBT, with the corollary removal of all opposition, be it in word or deed.

The truth be told, the modern gay rights movement is a fruit of the radical counterculture of the 1960’s, and it is grounded not in the civil rights movement (despite persistent claims to the contrary) but in the sexual revolution, a revolution for which we are still paying the price.

If Mr. Brown is correct and the call for equality for the LGBTQ Community is derived from the sexual revolution, that does not change the fact that human rights are for all humans.  Equality is for all, not just those acceptable to Mr. Brown's religion.

Mr. Brown goes on to claim that we, the United States of America, have enough moral problems that we should not be lecturing the rest of the world on morality.  He concludes.

While our country certainly has been a force for worldwide good in many ways, when it comes to sexual morality we should be hanging our heads in shame, not lecturing others.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech was a source of national embarrassment, not pride.

No, Mr. Brown, Secretary Clinton is a great and eloquent speaker.  We should be embarrassed by those Americans who encouraged Uganda to criminalize homosexuality.  Ms. Clinton has taken the first steps in righting a terrible wrong.  Shame on Mr. Brown for suggesting otherwise.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up.

Repudiation: Liberty Counsel Attacks Macy's

The American Family Association (AFA) detailed the fraudulent attack on Macy's.

Another Macy's store is reportedly permitting men to use women's dressing rooms -- and in the process, says Mat Staver, the retailer is alienating a lot of its customer base.

The problem first surfaced when a Macy's employee in San Antonio, Texas, was fired after telling a cross-dresser he could not use the women's dressing room to try on apparel. The employee had pointed out to management the consequences of a policy that affirms the lesbian, "gay," bisexual, transgender (LGBT) lifestyle.

The "man" in question is a transgender teenager, not an adult.  She was there to try on clothing in the section of the store where woman can go into a fitting room and try on the clothes.

Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, now tells OneNewsNow that an employee of another store has told him she has persistent problems keeping men out of the women's fitting room.

"She says that mothers of young daughters come up to her periodically and ask her to keep the men from going into the women's fitting rooms," the attorney reports. "So this apparently is a pervasive problem within the Macy's store system."

These fitting rooms or dressing rooms are designed for one person.  This is not like a locker room where there is room for a crowd or even space for a small group.  It does not make sense that this would be "a pervasive problem."

Before continuing to quote the article, let's hear from the employee who would not allow the transgender teen to try on clothes.

Ms. Johnson is fairly amazing.  Telling the young trans-woman that she was a man was at least rude.  Ms. Johnson is clear that it was her choice to refuse to comply with Macy's policy of allowing people to change in a fitting room of the gender which which they associate themselves.  Claiming "there are no transgenders in the world" is amazingly ignorant.  I understand that Ms. Johnson does not like that there are people who are born with the wrong gender, but she does not have the right to wish them away.  Back to the AFA article.

Macy's has an LGBT-friendly policy that allows men to use women's rooms, as Staver has told OneNewsNow before -- and he suggests that poses a danger for any woman or girl using them.

"This policy has put at risk every woman shopper who enters one of these rooms," he states in a press release. "While attempting to cater to a radical LGBT agenda, Macy's has alienated almost the entirety of its customer base.

Mr. Staver is lying on several fronts.  First, a transgender woman using an individual woman's dressing room does not endanger any other woman.  They are not in the same room.  Second, the LGBTQ Community has an agenda of seeking equality.  When did equality become radical?  Third, most people don't care who is trying on clothing in a fitting room.  When they go in to try on clothing, they are the only person in their small room; it is not a display case.

According to Liberty Counsel, the public is reacting.

"Consistently the people of America are saying that they will not shop at Macy's," explains Staver. "They're tearing up their Macy's credit cards, they're sending back their Macy's gift cards, they say that they will not shop at Macy's -- and this is a consistent response that we're seeing from the public around the country."

Really?  Macy's is in business to make money.  They have established policies that welcome ALL people into their stores because catering to everyone gets the most people through the doors to spend money.  One Million Moms may think they have grounds to complain to and boycott Macy's, with dittos from those who believe these hate groups.  I doubt it will have any affect.

Finally, who is Natalie Johnson?  Why would she feel the way she does?  Is this because she was in religious training and that is her ultimate vocation?  Is there more to the story?  A classmate of Ms. Johnson at San Antonio College, Jessica Strom, has some opinions.  I have not verified the veracity of this video, but it might answer a few questions.

Thanks to the Joe My God community for links to these videos.

Praise: Marine Corps Implementation of Repeal of DADT

It was not long ago that many religious and social conservatives were hysterical that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) would result in harm to the military.  My prediction was far more optimisitic.

The repeal of DADT and subsequent adjustments of military policy will end up strengthening the United States military.  When soldiers do not need to hide who they are, they will be more confident fighters.  When soldiers are not making assumptions about their fellow soldiers, they will be more confident fighters.  The necessary social bonding of our soldiers and sailors will enhance performance in the long run.

Today's Marine Corps Times has an interview of Marine Corps Commandant Jim Amos, who once opposed the repeal of DADT.

“I’m very pleased with how it has gone,” Amos said in an Associated Press interview during a week-long trip that included four days in Afghanistan, where he held more than a dozen town hall-style meetings with Marines of virtually every rank.

More of the article.

The apparent absence of angst about gays serving openly in the Marines seemed to confirm Amos’ view that the change has been taken in stride, without hurting the war effort.

In the AP interview, he offered an anecdote to make his point. He said that at the annual ball in Washington earlier this month celebrating the birth of the Marine Corps, a female Marine approached Amos’s wife, Bonnie, and introduced herself and her lesbian partner.

“Bonnie just looked at them and said, ‘Happy birthday ball. This is great. Nice to meet you,’ ” Amos said. “That is happening throughout the Marine Corps.”

Amos said he is aware of only one reported incident in Afghanistan thus far, and that turned out to be a false alarm. He said a blogger had written of a gay Marine being harassed by fellow Marines for his sexual orientation. In an ensuing investigation, the gay Marine denied he had been harassed.

A Defense Department spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith, said implementation of the repeal of the gay ban is proceeding smoothly across the military.

“We attribute this success to our comprehensive pre-repeal training program, combined with the continued close monitoring and enforcement of standards by our military leaders at all levels,” Smith said.

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen all know the importance of unit cohesion.  The United States has the best trained military on the planet.  General Amos says later in the article that he does not regret opposing the repeal of DADT, but he is a patriotic American soldier.  Like his men, the General rises to the call of duty.  Kudos to General Amos and his brave men and women.

The work now needs to go on for full equality.  Harvard University recently hosted a discussion of the repeal of DADT.  They discussed some of the ongoing concerns.

One continued problem has been that potential employers often ask dismissed veterans for their discharge papers, which reflect the servicemembers’ sexual orientation.

Additionally, the panelists said that many servicemembers who were dismissed for their sexual orientation do not receive full severance pay and veteran benefits, including medical care.

The treatment of partners of gay soldiers is also a continuing problem, according to the panelists. [military veteran Travis] Hengen said he has decided not to go back into the military because his partner would not receive the same benefits as a heterosexual spouse, including access to military bases.

They also discussed the denial of service to transgender individuals.  The road to equality is bumpy, but it does appear to be the good road that we are slowly moving on.

Repudiation: Rena Lindevalvdsen Objects to Occupy DC

Rena Lindevalvdsen is a Liberty University law professor, Liberty Counsel attorney, and the author of a book about and in support of baby kidnapper Lisa Miller and blog, both by the name Only One Mommy.  This caught my attention because of how far off Ms. Lindevalvdsen is from reality.  Of course, I expect that from one involved with one of the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate groups.

She complains about the guidelines adopted by the general assembly of Occupy DC.

Rule 1: “Respect each other, each others’ stuff and space.”Hmm, the irony of this one speaks for itself: a group of illegal squatters on publicly-owned property are demanding respect for the stuff and space of others. Well, then, get off property that does not belong to you and go home and go to work. Then you won’t find yourself in the situation of the occupier in New York who threw a hissy fit in a McDonald’s restaurant after they refused to give her free food.

It is public property.  In the United States of America we have the right to assembly and the right to access our public property.  Many who are party of the Occupy movement do not have jobs.  They would like to.  We have a system in place that rewards malfeasance among the richest (with notable exceptions like Bernie Madoff who stole from others who are rich).  Without reasonable oversight, many corporations run roughshod over individuals.  We hear in the news that corporations are sitting on a lot of money but not hiring.  Where are the jobs?

Rule 5: “We consider working class police officers a part of the 99%. However we will not carry out or enforce their orders that jeopardize the safety of other residents of McPherson Park. We will strive to maintain each other’s safety without relying on the police.” The working class reference immediately reminded me of the Communist Manifesto with its reference to the plight of the working class who needed to rise up against the oppressive bourgeois class.

There is a similarity.  That similarity does not mean that the Occupy movement is a facade for Communists.  Looking out for the safety of one another is not a Communist ideal, it is a human ideal.

Rule 10: “Don’t assume anyone’s gender. When possible go with gender neutral pronouns and nouns, such as friend/comrade instead of brother/sister.” After quickly highlighting the good communist reference to “comrades,”I’d like to point out the wholesale adoption of the idea that gender is fluid –you are what you think you are. I guess it should come as no surprise in today’s culture that those seeking to further entrench socialistic ideas in America also seek to legally sanction a view of human sexuality that is directly contrary to the binary nature of sexuality created by God. All forms of lawlessness travel together and work hand in hand to destroy the true meaning of liberty.

Those of us blessed with gender certainty have difficulty understanding that it is not so for everyone.  Ignorance can be cured with some education.  Given the religious nature of Ms. Lindevalvdsen's group, one might think charity would be in order instead of animus, except that religion is their excuse for hate.  God creates us in far more diversity than the "Liberty" folk are ready to accept.

Rule 13: “Be an ally. Take care of yourselves and your friends/siblings/homies in the struggle.” I had to include this one for two reasons. First, the “ally” language reminds us yet one more time of the socialistic tendencies of this group. Second, I’m a bit surprised that the best the “Guidelines Super Committee” could come up with is a rule that refers to taking care of one’s “homies.”

Allies was the term used for those who fought against the National Socialist party of Germany called the Nazis.  There is nothing wrong with the word ally.  Unlike ally, homies is not part of normal academic discourse.  Some in the Occupy movement are academics, but most are regular people.  Many regular people say homies.

Perhaps you have struggled as I have with understanding the purpose of the group or, even more so, the mentality that would cause a group of people to pitch tents on public property for more than a month.

I am among those who were initially unsure about the Occupy movement.  A group having no explicit platform of demands is difficult to categorize.  With time, I have come to see that there is a common set of complaints without a common set of solutions.  Even without agreement as to the solutions, the complaints must be addressed for the sake of our culture and economy.

Their signs only further confound me. Here’s one: “Cancel All Debt.” It specifically lists student loans, electricity bills, and mortgages. The facebook page for Occupy DC K Street states that the occupiers allegedly represent the 99% of the people in the nation who pay the taxes and maintain the economy. Without even turning to statistics – how can I possibly believe that people who sit around all day carrying signs asking that the government cancel all their debt somehow actually pay 99% of the taxes. I do believe you’d have to work in order to pay taxes.

There are numerous misconceptions here.  First, taxation is not limited to employment.  I pay taxes on my home, on products that I purchase, on capital gains and dividends, and in various other ways such as on my continued ownership of a car.  Second, we used to have affordable higher education.  That was a large part of what built a great economy in the United States after World War II.  Student loans are too onerous for many to repay.  This needs to be addressed.  Third, a large part of our Great Recession was caused by the sub-prime mortgage market.  There are too many Americans who have homes underwater and no prospect for financial recovery while they have been doing their best to follow all of the rules and be good citizens.  The American dream of home ownership became a nightmare based on the lies and cheating of too many in the banking industry.  This third point is a large part of why the Occupy movement exists.  Without government intervention, people are carrying signs because they feel they have run out of possibilities for other recourse.

Putting aside the obvious error in their position statement, statistics further disprove their point. A number of sources restate the statistic that the top 5% or the rich in America actually pay 50% of the taxes. So – how is it that the occupiers lay any claim to paying 99% of the taxes and therefore demanding that government use the tax money to forgive all of their debt?

No, the premise is incorrect.  The Congressional Budget Office has real data that shows what is happening.

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

• 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
• 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
• Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
• 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

• The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
• Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
• All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

The disparity in income growth is counter to the American ideal of a growing middle class.  The solution is not, as Ms. Lindevalvdsen alleges, Communism.  The solution is complicated but needs to include reparations for those stolen from by cheaters and liars, the point of the sign to which Ms. Lindevalvdsen objects, and regulations to prevent future cheating.  Back to her blog article

At its core, we are watching the results of mankind’s sinful nature: we’d rather have a handout than to have to work for our keep; we’d like to have someone come along behind us and clean up our mess (our debt); and we believe that others owe us something (rather than realizing that we deserve absolutely nothing and that anything we have is purely a gift from God).

No.  The majority of those in the Occupy movement are not seeking handouts.  They are seeking a fair playing field in which they are able to earn their keep.  Those who are responsible for the debt need to repay it (particularly fraudulent mortgage dealers on that part of the problem).  God did not force big banks, mortgage firms, and parts of Wall Street to lie and cheat.  God told us to not bear false witness.  Perhaps Ms. Lindevalvdsen should listen more to God.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of First Amendment rights. But, these occupiers have as their goal to destroy the very fabric of this nation.

Wrong.  The Occupy movement seeks to rebuild this nation from the damage wrought by some of the 1%.

During a week honoring all those who have died protecting our God-given unalienable rights, I find this movement particularly offensive because they seek to eradicate the Biblical principles upon which our nation was founded and put in its place a socialistic system that attempts to make big government the savior of all.

Removal of government watchdog systems during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in too many among the 1% ignoring the messages of God to tell the truth and to not cheat one's neighbors.  Ms. Lindevalvdsen and the Liberty Counsel work to prevent equality for all American citizens, all of whom are children of God.  The messages of the Bible are far more socialistic than the Occupy movement.

Why is it people will look every place for a savior yet reject the One who came to save mankind from its sins? Perhaps it’s the same pride and arrogance that leads people to refuse to work, ask me to pay their debts, and squat on land not belonging to them.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution prevents me from being forced to worship your "savior".  The United States is a nation with a majority of Christians which is not the same thing as a Christian nation.  We are a nation that claims to ensure the rights of minorities.  It is pride and arrogance that has Ms. Lindevalvdsen mischaracterizing the Occupy movement's nature, goals, and aspirations.

Thanks to Joe My God for the heads up and to the Rachel Maddow blog for the link to the CBO.

Praise: California Transgender Laws

Transgender, the 'T' in LGBTQ, is the toughest in sexuality for many of us to understand.  If one is straight, gay, or lesbian, then the sexual orientation is very clear.  No confusion.  If one is bi, then either gender is attractive and, while others are confused, the bi individual can be as comfortable with herself or himself as a straight, gay, or lesbian person.  People who are transgender are not comfortable with who they appear to be.  For anyone who is comfortable in their own skin (other than the details like wanting to lose a few pounds), it doesn't make sense that someone might not be as comfortable with themselves.

Not easily understanding another person, of course, does not make it right to discriminate.  California has two new laws as of 10 October, the Gender Nondiscrimination Act and the Vital Statistics Modernization Act.  There are articles on these at the Huffington Post and at Care2 (among others).  The Gender Nondiscrimination Act deals with gender identity and expression, which clarifies existing non-discrimination laws and makes transgender persons a protected class.  The Vital Statistics Modernization Act lets a person update their ID with their doctor's verification and without the need for proof of surgery.  San Francisco's Transgender Law Center is hailing both laws as huge victories.

It would be wonderful to live in a world where this was a non-issue.  Sadly, those who hate and fear are not going away.  Catholic Online does not approve of equality.  Here are the last two paragraphs of their article:

The laws mark the latest in a round of increasingly government sponsored changes to the culture in California. As the state steadily moves away from the two parent, heterosexual marriage - and the family and society founded upon it - it is apparently trying to stand out as a leader in promoting the homosexual equivalency movement and a cultural revolution.

While few will argue against equality and legal protection for all citizens, critics say the new laws are much more than that. They reflect a fundmantal [sic] re-making of of the social order and an erosion of the marriage bound, heterosexual, two parent family as the foundation for civil society in America.

Like sexuality, being transgender is not a choice.  The only choice for such a person is whether to go through a major surgery to bring their body into alignment with their identity.  This is not just my opinion, but that of the American Psychological Association in a lengthy (106 page) study.  Among the reports recommendations are:

• Amend the Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-Harassment sections in the APA Policies and Procedures Manual to include gender identity and gender expression.
• Ensure that all APA policies that make reference to gender identity be amended to include gender expression as well.

The American Medical Association also opposes discrimination against transgender persons.  We can only hope that eventually we can move beyond the hate and fear that makes such policies necessary.