ENDA and the Ts

ENDA, for those who don't know, is a bill before Congress which is meant to prevent workplace discrimination against homos (in a similar vein to the Civil Rights Act of 1967, which left out homos and folks with disabilities; the disabled got added in the nineties). ENDA has been thirty years in the making and this year, for the first time, might have a chance to pass.

So, what's the problem?

"T"

Transgendered, transsexual (not transvestite. Guiliani is still covered). The newest version of the bill had the T in it, but Barney Frank, the openly homotastic sponsor of the bill chose to drop the T because there is no way in hell it would pass with the T in it. And then all hell broke loose.

John Aravosis, of AMERICAblog, wrote this article on Salon regarding the issue, as well as blogging about it extensively. And, as Aravosis is wont to do, he upset some people; my raison d'blog is this post on the Curvature. I generally respect the writers of the Curvature and the associated feminist blogs, and I respect their opinion this time, but I do think their reasoning is faulty. Follows is the comment I left on the Curvature; I think it sums my feelings up:

Frankly, I think y'all are a) taking Aravosis out of context, and b) passing too harsh of judgment upon him.

The first sentence of the paragraph whose quote, in this blog, begins "Civil rights legislation -- hell, all legislation..." actually begins in Aravosis' article as "The main argument, which I support: practical politics." And he's right. Yes, I agree fully that it sucks that women did not get the vote (federally) for fifty years after black men. And I fully understand the consternation of everyone on account of that. However, and I am saying this as a white gay female -- I think it is better for a minority to be partially represented than Not Represented At All. Furthermore, if you get into the history of the suffrage movements, for one thing it was a huge step for black men to even be recognised as men (and for black women to be recognised as women), and for another, there was precedent for -men- to vote. Women voting, no matter what their race, was a whole other kettle of fish for the country to deal with.

Does this make it right? Hell no. Never, at all. But it -is- the political evolutionary process. Things take time because people are stubborn. For me (or anyone) to argue passage of ENDA with the T or not at all, we would have to cease taking advantage of civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the domestic benefits offered by some employers. Why? Because our ultimate goal is marriage, and anything less is an insult, right?

I disagree -- while I would prefer (of course) federally recognised marriage, right now I would be happy knowing that any kids/cats/wealth I produce with my future wife would go to her if something hideous happens to me, and vice versa. If the government has to call that a civil union in order for that to happen, then so be it.

I fully understand that my example is different from the "T or not to T" issue -- but my point is that -any- step towards protection for the nontraditional/heterosexual community is a step in the right direction, and I believe that would be the point which Aravosis is arguing.

As for Aravosis being judgmental, the full sentence reads "I'm not passing judgment, I respect transgendered people and sympathize with their cause, but I simply don't get how I am just as closely related to a transsexual (who is often not gay) as I am to a lesbian (who is). Is it wrong for me to simply ask why?"

So the man is saying that he does not identify with the transsexual/transgender experience, but that he DOES identify with the gay experience. It looks to me like he's being honest. He is not being judgmental; he is saying that he does not feel related to a man who identifies as a woman. What's wrong with that? I cannot begin to identify with the experience of any given black person, and you know what? I cannot identify with the transsexual or transgender experience either.

Does this mean that I, and therefore Aravosis, find that the T does not deserve protection? By his own words, no, and neither do I.

The passage of ENDA (sans the T) at least puts the gay community into a better position to provide support and protection for the T community, and that alone is reason enough for its passage. Is it ideal? Not at all, and as soon as it passes we have to immediately begin work for an amendment to include the T, but progression and reform in this country has NEVER happened at once, it has NEVER been anywhere near good enough on the first go (just look up how Jim Crow affected the black man's vote), and it has NEVER affected all parts of any community equally.

We have to keep working for that, and in the interim, turning on people who dare be honest about their opinions (which may or may not coincide fully with our own) will be only a slide backward.

I am, as most people know, a fervent arguer against the excuse, as I see it, of the zeitgeist, or the time period in which something happened. I think that is a pass on all of the atrocities committed by people at other people. I have never stood for the argument of "Well, that's just how things were," because that leaves us open for "Well, that's just how things are," and I don't think that human morality has evolved that much -- we know, in our brains and hearts whether or not it is ok to enslave, beat, kill, and oppress each other, but we do whatever is most convenient and what ensures our own power. Because I'll bet you that if Jesus Christ Himself were to show up and officiate a gay wedding, the fundies would crucify Him.

At any rate, my point is that despite the fact that slow change is not at all quick enough, it is the reality of how things work. That does not make it right at all, and it seriously pisses me off when people tell that it's just how things work; I think that people should, as soon as they recognise hideousness, change it, instead of the process. However, the process is better than nothing at all, and it is unfair to eviscerate people who argue in favour of doing a practical something rather than a symbolic nothing.

Feminism, Femmenism.

For most of my life, I have been accused, as it were, of being a man-hating feminazi. One would imagine that it would happen more since I figured out my homonism, but that's not entirely true; it's stayed about the same, but I surmise that the same people who were saying it before (or the same sort that would have been) just chalk it up to the homonism. I find this ridiculous since I live with a man. I like men. I just don't want to marry them. Why is this difficult?

Recently, I began to more deeply explore the wide world of feminism by reading a variety of feminist blogs. This has had two major effects on me: one is that I now realise that I am not nearly as radical as I previously thought, and the second is that I am far more radical than I previously thought.

The latter is easier for me to wrap my mind around, so it goes first; essentially, I get way more annoyed with misogynist-speak than I did previously. I have been internalising and processing the why of that, and yesterday evening, I figured it out. The boy roommate and I were at Pluckers, a wing/burger/sports joint, and we managed to get there on trivia night. The category at this time was movies. Trivia man asks the question:

"In what (whatever year it was) movie did James Garner, Ashley Judd, and Sandra Bullock appear?"

This, in and of itself, was not the issue. He followed up with:

"Guys, you don't know this because it is a -total- chick flick. If you have a girl at your table, ask her, and if not, just give up. If you know this by yourself, you've lost cool points with me."

The nerve! The answer, incidentally, is Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, based on the book by Rebecca Wells. Why does this bother me so much all the sudden? I think it is because the insinuation from the trivia guy was that if the guys knew the answer, they were a) gay, or b) that ever-hideous epithet men use on other men, "pussies." Previously, I did not care for the latter term simply because it is rather profane, but now I realise just -why- it is profane: guys are insulting each other by calling them women.

I do not really get why I never really got that before, but the worst thing these guys can call someone is, essentially, a woman. And that really bothers the hell out of me, especially since I am meant to be so man-hating. However, I am certainly never going to attempt to insult a woman by calling her any bit of the male anatomy, and thereby a man. That's ridiculous.

The problem is, this kind of thinking, that men can insult each other by calling them women, is feeding into, and perhaps concurrent with this really, really odd idea that men helping women with domestic issues is a) emasculating, and therefore b) OMG SooooOOO SWEET! This is bullshit. Men are not some kind of omnipotent being who is so far above the menial tasks of life. They are just people. This is one end of the Crazy Men Spectrum: Men are powerful, men are above women, and when they deign to come down to are level, it is the sweetest thing ever and we should rejoice, and again I say rejoice.

On the other end of the spectrum are some really radical feminists. I believe that the truly man-hating ones are very few, and they exist on the other end of the Crazy Men Spectrum, which is to say, Men are dirt. I think it would be very helpful if the people on the ends could come together in a compromise. Men are people too, and men are just people like everyone else.

A step closer to the middle on the spectrum, but not much, are the women who take as a point of pride the fact that they do not shave anything, have very short hair on top of their head (which I find a bit silly. If they aren't going to shave their legs, why does it make sense to mess with their head hair so much?), do not wear make up, et cetera. Ok, that's fine for them, but a subset of those women conclude that I am bowing to the pressure of the patriarchy on account of I -do- shave my legs, I enjoy having long hair, I do wear makeup on occasion and yes, GASP, I both own and wear heels.

Great, so now I'm not feminine enough, and the radical feminists say I am too feminine. Here I am, stuck in the middle with...anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Ok, perhaps someone else is in my predicament. I will not apologise for "bowing to the patriarchy." I do not think that's actually what it is. Frankly, I don't find shaving my legs a hideous and painful experience. It's not really that difficult. Also, I like the way my smooth legs feel. I like the way my girlfriends' smooth legs feel. I also like my long hair, and I like girls with long hair. I also like the way I look when I am wearing makeup, and guess what? I like the way other girls look when -they- are wearing makeup (as long as it's not that weird clone makeup). So, I'm not holding anyone to a higher standard than myself. I rather enjoy being a girl, with most everything that goes along with that.

I had a point, and I think it was that I really do not get why some of the people who rail against misogyny are so fascist on occasion, or why it is that other people (who are a much, much larger population) do not get that not being a poor, helpless little girl does not make you a man-hater. Most of the problems we have in our society could be solved if everyone would just sod off and let everyone else live their lives as they see fit. Why is this difficult?

Pigeonholing

Just now on Feministe, I read an article by a woman who wonders if it is possible to be a Christian and a feminist concurrently. My first instinct is to say yes, of course. Look at my mom, look at me, look at my female pastor, et cetera. That seems simplistic for some reason, and processing the "why" of that is becoming a bit difficult. Since I started reading the feminist blogs of late, I have been trying to define myself within the feminist spectrum, for my own edification.

The argument, of course, is that everyone should be "outside the box" and not be "pigeonholed" or "labeled" or "categorised." I say, fuck that -- I need some definition in my life, and everyone, whether they like it or not, is in a category, even if it is a category of one which contains only them. I am the sole member of the set of me. Hooray, now what else? My first tendencies to define or describe myself tend to be "German," "Lutheran" and "homo." I hesitate even to define myself as a "Christian" anymore because the vast majority of people recoil at the word. I can hardly blame the vast majority, because I tend to recoil when anyone mentions Christians as well.

This could be on account of recent high-profile "Christians" being, well, stupid, and because one in particular blamed me for those asshats who stole airplanes and ran into buildings with them a few years back. Because that makes sense. At any rate, as near as I can tell at this time, the word "Christian" evokes the images of intolerance, anger, hate, The Dark Side, an incredible naivety/stupidity, (cap tip to Bint for reminding me of that piece), bigotry, and a general inability to function in the world. This, of course, is the exact opposite of the effect which Jesus of Nazareth intended, according the the four canon Gospels, when he walked around the Galilee for three years about two thousand years ago.

I had a point. Oh, right. I do not want to be a "Christian," really. The problem is, I find the tenets which Jesus of Nazareth preached highly compelling. Don't be a bitch. Pray quietly, not all loud and out in public where everyone will see you being high and mighty. Take care of poor people, sick people, and generally underprivileged people. Shut the fuck up unless you are perfect. It's some good stuff. And then, to cap it all off, this guy sacrifices his life, painfully, for the good of humanity. Granted, there's a lot of people who don't think that Jesus of Nazareth is/was the Christ. Frankly, I think it's immaterial (for the record, I happen to think that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, but that's not the point). The whole point that this guy was attempting to make was to be kind, be unselfish, and to be self-sacrificing. I think he makes a good point.

I was raised Lutheran, which is a low-key, low-profile denomination described thusly on a recent episode of the Prairie Home Companion:

"Really quiet people; they go in for comfort food, hot dishes and so on. Very self-effacing, wear dark colours, navy blue. Like Amish, except they drive cars. Sort of modest in a kind of ostentatious way."

That sounds about right (Tip of the cap to Henry for hooking me up with that). So I've been living most of my life trying to do that, more or less. But then these bitches who call themselves Christians get on TV and start telling everyone else how hideous they are for not being Christian, and that if they will send five hundred bucks to X ministry, their eternal soul will be saved. Mary Chapin Carpenter said it well when she wrote "Forgiveness doesn't come with a debt." Commercialising alleged soul-saving is akin to that bullshit the Catholic church was pulling back in the day with the indulgences and suchnot. This is just televised indulgences, and anyone who wants to argue with me can name the time and place.

I really did have a point. Oh, yes. The majority of the "Christian" movement, at least in the United States, is so far removed from even what its own holy book says about it that I reckon if Christ came back at this time, He would barely recognise Himself anywhere in it. I have such sympathy for people who say that they loathe organised religion, probably because I feel the same way most of the time. I'm in a particularly unique position: the Christians do not like me because I'm a big old homo, and the homos eye me askance because I am a Christian.

The same thing happens with the feminists. I'm not as feminist as I am meant to be, apparently, and to the more conservative, "Oh, you can walk alone at night because you are a lesbian," set, I am a big scary dyke feminist who is going to turn all their women gay. And yes, that really was said to me, and I am allegedly meant to get over it. Forgiveness and all that, but what people do not understand is how much that statement really hurt me. It does not help that I know that it is a widely held belief.

So, where does that leave me? Well, I am a member of the only ethnic group in the world of which it is allowable to make jokes (more on that later; it's not a huge part of my life, but I think it bears addressing), I am a homo feminist Lutheran who is not a particularly accepted member of any of those groups. Bint might be right; it is impossible to be part of more than one group at once.