Seven Things One Needs to Know About Transgender Persons

I often have little good to say about conservative religious beliefs given the hate and division they inspire.  I often have even less good to say about Baptists in particular.  The general mindset of these Christofasists is exemplified by modern day Pharisee Franklin Graham whose latest message of hatred and division is that conservative Christians should be willing to die rather than give into accepting transgender rights and individuals.  Thus my shock and surprise to find a reasoned piece at Baptist News that looks at a pastor's efforts to educate himself and others as to the medical and scientific truths of what being transgender means and entails.  Even more shocking - but in  a pleasant way - is his statement that who is to say that the transgendered are not "made in the image of God."  Here are highlights of this piece that ought to be required reading for the falsely pious "godly folks":

I don’t know much about transgender issues, but I’m trying to learn. . . . But with the help of a pediatrician friend and a geneticist friend, I’m listening and trying to learn. This is hard, though, because understanding the transgender experience seems so far outside what I have ever contemplated before. And the more I learn, the more theological questions I face as well. This is hard, even for a pastor.

Here’s some of what I’m learning from my friends who have experience as medical professionals dealing with real people and real families:

1. Even though LGBT gets lumped together in one tagline, the T is quite different than the LG and B. “Lesbian,” “gay” and “bisexual” describe sexual orientation. “Transgender” describes gender identity. These are not the same thing. Sexual orientation is about whom we feel an attraction to and want to mate with; gender identity is about whether we identify as male or female.

2. What you see is not always what you get. For the vast majority of humanity, the presence of male or female genitalia corresponds to whether a person is male or female. What you see is what you are. But for a small part of humanity (something less than 1 percent), the visible parts and the inner identity do not line up. For example, it is possible to be born with male genitalia but female chromosomes or vice versa. And now brain research has demonstrated that it also is possible to be born with female genitalia, female chromosomes but a male brain. Most of us hit the jackpot upon birth with all three factors lining up like cherries on a slot machine: Our anatomy, chromosomes and brain cells all correspond as either male or female. But some people are born with variations in one or two of these indicators.

3. Stuff happens at birth that most of us never know. It’s not an everyday occurrence but it’s also not infrequent that babies are born with ambiguous or incomplete sexual anatomy. In the past, surgeons often made the decision about whether this child would be a boy or a girl, based on what was the easiest surgical fix. Today, much more thought is given to these life-changing decisions.

4. Transgender persons are not “transvestites.” Far too many of us make this mix-up, in part because the words sound similar and we have no real knowledge of either. Cross-dressers, identified in slang as “transvestites,” are people (typically men) who are happy with their gender but derive pleasure from occasionally dressing like the opposite gender. Cross-dressing is about something other than gender identity.

5. Transgender persons are not pedophiles. The typical profile of a pedophile is an adult male who identifies as heterosexual and most likely even is married. There is zero statistical evidence to link transgender persons to pedophilia.

6. Transgender persons hate all the attention they’re getting. The typical transgender person wants desperately not to attract attention. All this publicity and talk of bathroom habits is highly disconcerting to people who have spent their lives trying not to stand out or become the center of attention.

7. Transgender persons are the product of nature much more than nurture. Debate the origins of homosexuality if you’d like and what role nature vs. nurture plays. But for those who are transgender, nature undeniably plays a primary role. According to medical science, chromosomal variances occur within moments of conception, and anatomical development happens within the nine months in the womb. There is no nature vs. nurture argument, except in cases of brain development, which is an emerging field of study.

This last point in particular raises the largest of theological questions. If Christians really believe every person is created in the image of God, how can we damn a baby who comes from the womb with gender dysphoria? My pediatrician friend puts it this way: “We must believe that even if some people got a lower dose of a chromosome, or an enzyme, or a hormonal effect, that does not mean that they got a lower dose of God’s image.”

Would that the Christofascists and their eager political whores within the Republican Party would bother to educate themselves as this Dallas, Texas pastor is endeavoring to do.  Kudos to the piece's author.

Backlash Coninues Against Dolce & Gabbana

When one's work is in the fashion industry, it is perhaps best to avoid making commentary on hot button social issues - especially if you are gay and are giving fodder to the anti-gay hate merchants.  Just as Italian pasta maker Barilla caused itself a PR nightmare with comments about "traditional families" now fashion house Dolce & Gabbana has followed suit.  The biggest difference is the the heads of D&G are gay and were once a couple, yet they maligned gay parenting and in vitro fertilization.   While they have tried to walk back their comments, the protests continue, including a protest at D & G's flagship London store.  The London Evening Standard has details.  Here are highlights:

Gay rights protesters gathered outside a Dolce & Gabbana store in central London today after the fashion designers' "homophobic" comments about IVF babies.

Campaigners from The Out and Proud Diamond Group held placards which said "D&G Homophobia is not fashionable!" in the protest next to the shop in Bond Street.

They were joined by leading gay rights activist Peter Tatchell as they called for shoppers to boycott D &G after the duo claimed children conceived through IVF were "synthetic".

Other protest banners read "Dolce & Gabbana - put labels on clothes, not families" and "Boycott D&G over their disrespect for gay families".

Singer Elton John, who has two IVF children with husband David Furnish, waded in on the row this week, adding to calls for a boycott of the fashion brand.

The Italian designers, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, are said to be shocked by the public backlash over their comments.

Mexican Catholic Bishop: Homophobia is a Mental Illness

I can hear heads exploding at the Vatican and bishopric around the globe (they probably had to call 911 for blowhard Bill Donohue of the Catholic League) over remarks by Mexican Bishop, Raúl Vera (pictured above), who believes that homophobes are actually the depraved ones, not gays.  While Bishop Vera doesn't get all of the theories of what causes some of us to be gay, he does get right the theory a prominent researcher explained to me some years ago that hormones play a role in determining sexual orientation in vitro.  In short, unlike most of the Catholic Church hierarchy he comes close to accepting modern scientific knowledge rather than the ignorant writings of wandering nomads from 2500 years ago. Blabbeando has details.  Here are excerpts:

A lot has been said about Pope Francis' recent of the cuff comments on gays ("Who am I to judge?") and hundreds of religious leaders world wide have been asked to share their thoughts but I was still surprised to see this interview with Saltillo Bishop Raúl Vera posted by Terra Mexico yesterday ("Homophobia is a mental illness: Saltillo bishop").

The Bishop has some funky theories on what determines whether someone is born gay (he chalks it up to hormonal differences) but speaks forcefully against religious based homophobia and calls homophobes the perverse ones. 

Here is Bishop Vera on a mother who worried her son was hanging out with a bunch of "degenerate gays':

One mother came to me and said that she was being watchful of her son because he was hanging out with "those degenerate gays" and I said "so blame yourself for it because that's the way your son developed in your womb and he didn't develop into a degenerate or a perverse person. He was born with a certain constitution you are trying to ignore. Calm down, you are the mother of that child and he began to be who he now is inside your womb. So the first one I'd kick out would be you because you are the perverse one who is first in line." That's what I said.

And on homophobes:

Why would I immediately think a gay or lesbian person is perverse or depraved the moment they approach me? That's how people who are homophobic react. It's a mental illness in which you see gays as depraved and promiscuous.  You have to be sick in the head for that.

He also tells the reporter people have to stop bashing gays with the words of the Bible and that they should read the passages they use to condemn gays within a historical context to realize the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.
Yesterday's interview is not the first time Bishop has supported LGBT issues. The AP says that he backed a same-sex civil unions law in the region and was called to the Vatican two years ago to explain an outreach program he organized for gay youth.

He has also received death threats for his outspokenness.

Kudos to Bishop Vera.  Would that the self-loathing queens in Rone (and in Richmond and Arlington, Virginia) were so enlightened.  One humorous aside on the blog post is this:

Over at Reddit, there has been some back and forth on whether Bishop Vera was insensitive in calling homophobia a "mental illness" from people who feel it unfairly groups people diagnosed with mental illness with people who hate gays.

For those who don't follow Blabbeando regularly, it has excellent coverage of LGBT issues in Central and South America.  Interestingly enough, some years back both this blog and Blabbeando were listed in the top 100 LGBT blogs by the UK's Lesbian and Gay Foundation.  It was the editor of Blabbeando, Andrés Duque, who let me know this blog had been so honored.

"Personhood" for Embryo Agenda is Theocracy

I've often noted that opposing civil equality for LGBT citizens is only the tip of the iceberg of the Christianist agenda and that also targeted over the longer term are making all abortions illegal, outlawing most forms of contraception, returning mandatory Christian prayer to public schools, and outlawing science based sex education. Many scoff at the notion, but Mississippi may soon demonstrate through its "personhood" for embryo legislation that the objective of criminalizing abortion and many forms of contraception is for real. And if Mississippi is successful and the Republicans take control of the Virginia Senate, person hood for embryos could become reality in Virginia as soon as next years session of the General Assembly. Sadly, most people do not grasp just how relentless and uncaring for the rights of other the theocrats are in fact. We are not dealing with rational or nice people. A column in Religion Dispatches looks at the theocratic agenda the "personhood" agenda represents. Here are highlights:

Mississippi Initiative 26, the “personhood” amendment on the November 8th ballot, is not only dangerous for women’s health and lives—it is dangerous for our democracy. While not recognized as such, it is an openly theocratic endeavor. We should be talking about theocracy because this amendment is not just being fielded in Mississippi—it has been introduced in at least six other states, with more to come.

We know the harm that Initiative 26 would do by effectively ending access to reproductive health care in Mississippi—including banning all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the woman; some forms of contraception; and in vitro fertilization. Not to mention the frightening possibility that doctors would not be able to provide life-saving medical treatment to a pregnant woman, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. We should also be aware that this amendment would enact in law a specific religious view about “personhood”

I call this campaign “theocratic” as a Baptist minister who holds all human life to be sacred. But issues around human life are not as simple as the “personhood” proponents believe. . . . .

It is no secret that personal religious views motivate the “personhood” campaign. The group organizing the Mississippi initiative, Personhood USA, defines itself on its website as a Christian ministry. . . . Mississippi’s largest Christian denomination, the Mississippi Baptist Convention>, is backing the personhood proposal through its lobbying arm, the Christian Action Commission.

[I]n the fashion of those who are determined to embed their religious views in law, there is no acknowledgement that there are other, equally valid views. Because there are a variety of views on such a basic question as “the beginning of life,” the constitution guarantees that decisions about contraception and abortion will be protected by law. And that is where the matter should rest.

As I have said before, the Christianists and their political whores in the Republican Party are a clear and present danger to religious freedom for all and for constitutional government in America. They need to be stopped before it is too late.

Will Christianists Make In Vitro Fertilization Illegal in Mississippi

I have long maintained that imposing their views on sexual orientation on all of society is only the tip of the iceberg for the Christianist/dominionist movement. Other targets are outlawing pre-marital sex, totally outlawing abortion, and even making the use of contraception illegal. People scoff at the idea that such things yet if one reads the discourse on Christianist websites over a period of time it become all to clear that these people are extremists and zealots. Looking at what's happening in Mississippi suggests that these folks will go to any lengths to achieve their goals. In Mississippi the ostensible goal is to outlaw all abortion and set the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet the collateral damage would extend much further and would in theory outlaw in vitro fertilization in an already exceedingly backward state. Michele Goldberg looks at what's afoot in a column in The Daily Beast. Here are some highlights:

In September, Mississippi’s Supreme Court ruled that a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to define embryos as persons could go forward in November. Since then, Dr. Randall Hines, one of four physicians in the state who perform in vitro fertilization, has been fielding panicked calls from women with fertility problems.

The so-called Personhood Amendment won’t outlaw all IVF, but it could drastically change how it’s practiced, making it less effective and more dangerous. “It’s certainly possible that certain IVF practices would become illegal,” says Hines.

The personhood movement, which aims to put initiatives like Mississippi’s on the ballots of nine other states in the next year, represents a radical new anti-abortion legal strategy. It’s built around a few lines in Roe v. Wade that grapple with the question of whether a fetus is a person under the 14th Amendment. “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment,” wrote Justice Harry Blackmun, before concluding that a fetus is not in fact a person. The personhood movement believes that by legally changing the definition of what a person is, it can undermine Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion. But should any state actually pass a personhood amendment, it would impact IVF as well. That is not accidental.

The first personhood initiative to make it onto a state ballot was in Colorado in 2008, a campaign Mason managed. It lost overwhelmingly, getting just 27 percent of the vote. Anti-abortion activists tried again two years later, and lost again, though that time they got 30 percent of the vote.

For Mississippi women desperate to become pregnant, the prospect of seeing their chances drastically curtailed is terrifying. Thus, they’ve been some of the strongest voices against the personhood amendment. A little over a month ago, Atlee Breland, a mother of three children conceived through intrauterine insemination—a less invasive form of assisted reproduction that couples often try before progressing to IVF—founded Parents Against 26, and has been traveling the state speaking out. “The medical realities of the IVF process definitely mean that 26 is a serious, serious threat to the family-building options of thousands and thousands of Mississippi women just like me,” she says.

Hopefully people will wake up to the dangers of the Christianist agenda that seeks to strip away the rights of others who don't conform tot he Christianist world view. There are legislators right here in Virginia who support a similar effort to change the definition of what constitutes a "person." The threat is very real - especially if the GOP takes control of the Virginia Senate.

More Bigotry from Child Rapist Enablers in Catholic Hierarchy

Rather than clean its own house and turn those who enabled the rape of countless children and youths over to the authorities, the Catholic Church hierarchy continues to engage in anti-gay bigotry and the condemnation of in vitro fertilization. The latter actions demonstrating that the Church with its anti-birth control mantra prefers that individuals be forced to parent children they never wanted while those who want children never have them. It's more of what I view as the Church's increasingly ass backwards reasoning that derives in no small part from the power and control crazed senile [and bitter] old queens at the Vatican and throughout the Church hierarchy. The first dose of batshitery comes from the Vatican reaction to the award of the Nobel prize for medicine to British doctor Robert G. Edwards for his work on in vitro fertilization. The bitch queens say the award is inappropriate. What's inappropriate is that anyone in the right mind continues to listen to the Vatican on any issue. The second dose is in the form of Twin Cities Archbishop John C. Nienstedt's refusal to give communion to gay Catholics. Here are highlights from CNN on the Vatican's tantrum over the Nobel prize award to Dr. Edwards:
*
An official with the Vatican criticized the decision to award the Nobel prize for medicine to British doctor Robert G. Edwards for his work on in vitro fertilization, Italy's official news agency ANSA reported Tuesday.
*
Ignazio Carrasco de Paula, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said giving the award to Edwards was "completely inappropriate," according to the news agency. He said Edwards' work had created a market for human eggs and created problems of embryos being frozen, the news agency said.
*
His work has led to the birth of about four million babies, the committee said in praising his work. The prize is worth 10 million Swedish kronor (about $1.5 million). Born in Manchester, England, in 1925, Edwards is based at Cambridge University in England.
*
As for the Twin Cities' archbishop's latest actions - which follow his endorsement of an anti-gay DVD distribution effort - here are highlights from the Star Tribune:
*
Twin Cities Archbishop John C. Nienstedt, leading a student mass at St. John's Abbey recently, refused to give communion to members of a gay and lesbian college student group who were wearing rainbow buttons in a sign of solidarity.
*
The conflict between the archbishop and students from the Roman Catholic St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict occurred during Sunday night
*
The action came as Catholics throughout Minnesota have been sent hundreds of thousands of DVDs from the state's bishops in support of a ban on gay marriage.

Doctors Must Treat Gays and Lesbians

The California Supreme Court has handed down another opinion striking a blow for the equal rights of LGBT citizens. This time in North Cost Women's Care Medical Group vs. Superior Court, the Court handed down a unanimous decision rejecting a San Diego County fertility clinic's attempt to use its physicians' religious beliefs as a justification for their refusal to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. In my view, the Court correctly reasoned that a religious objector has no federal constitutional right to an exemption from a neutral and valid law of general applicability on the ground that compliance with that law is contrary to the objector’s religious beliefs. In this case, the law was California's law barring discrimination by those business establishments that offer to the public “accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services.” Needless to say, the Christianists will be shedding all kinds of theatrical tears over this ruling since in their view, their rights and beliefs trump those of everyone else. Here are some highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle:

*

SAN FRANCISCO -- Doctors in California must treat gays and lesbians the same as any other patient, regardless of religious objections, the state Supreme Court ruled today. In a unanimous decision, the court rejected a San Diego County fertility clinic's attempt to use its physicians' religious beliefs as a justification for their refusal to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.

*

Guadalupe Benitez sued North Coast Women's care in Vista and two of its doctors, saying they told her in 2000 that because she was a lesbian their Christian beliefs prohibited them from performing intrauterine insemination for her. The doctors later claimed they would have refused the treatment for any unmarried couple.

*

Today's ruling, three months after overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage, strengthened the state's law that prohibits businesses, including medical clinics, from discriminating against customers because of their sexual orientation, as well as their race, sex or religion. The court said religious beliefs do not excuse discrimination.

*

Benitez, now 36, said the ruling isn't just a victory for lesbians. "Anyone could be the next target if doctors are allowed to pick and choose their patients based on religious views about other groups of people," she said.

*

Attorney Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative group that filed arguments supporting the doctors, called today's ruling "the epitome of intolerance" and said it forces the defendants "to choose between being doctors in the state of California or being able to practice their faith."