Via Sign On San Diego News and Creative Loafing comes this report of some of the most breathtaking asshat fuckwittery I’ve seen, ooh, for about 10 minutes.
It seems that Duncan D. Hunter, a Republican congressman and military spokesman came out with this gem of a speech during a recent interview on U.S. National Public Radio. Melissa Block, the interviewer, asked the congressman why he does not support gay men and women serving openly in the military.
Duncan D. Hunter: Because I think that it’s bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close contact, that are in close quarters in country right now. It’s not the time to do it. The military is not civilian life. And I think the folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians.
Melissa Block: Transgenders and hermaphrodites?
Duncan D. Hunter: It’s not just gays and lesbians. It’s a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you’re going to let anybody in no matter what preference, that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. It’s going to be like civilian life, and I think that would be detrimental for the military.
it is totally sad to hear a new trans murder from Antalya, turkey. a transwoman named Derya(35) was stabbed to death in her house yesterday [February 8] at 23.30. the police started an investigation as for the case and we will wait for the details of this investigation. we do not have the information of the perpetrator(s) yet.
this the first information that we have had. we’ll inform you about the details asap.
—————
Previous posts related to the continuing war against trans women in Turkey:
Potential triggers: In this post I talk about certain issues arising from our being misgendered following a serious accident or death. I realise that some readers may find the topic disturbing and would respectfully suggest that anyone who feels these subjects could be triggering to them, to please not read this post.
—————
little light’s recent post at Questioning Transphobia, “is a dream a lie if it don’t come true / or is it something worse” (password protected) was a powerful illustration of a problem faced by too many of us; that of the validity and authenticity of our identities as perceived by too many cis people. It is too often the case that we are considered to be, to paraphrase Queen Emily, “‘really’ a man/woman/whatever gender we were assigned at birth” (via QT).
In her post, little light recounted how a friend, in hospital after a serious road traffic accident, whose family took her off her transitioning medical regimen and instructed caregivers to call her by her old name, because “it would just be too confusing to explain”. It is one of the worst examples of the arrogant assumption of cis people that they are better qualified than we are to make decisions about our identities. It demonstrates the dangers of “good intentions” being used by cis people as a euphemismistic excuse for attacking us with one of the most devastating, and potentially fatal, tools of cis oppression available to them: misgendering.
The point of little light’s post was to share her realisation that this could just as easily happen to any of us, and to urge us to prepare for, and protect ourselves against, such attacks being launched against us at a time in our lives when we may be at our most vulnerable. For various reasons, I’ve been thinking about it a lot, and wholeheartedly agree with her suggestion to:
Figure out what your wishes are about your care, write them down, and share them with people you trust, and then make them official, because you cannot know what will happen tomorrow.
I find myself wondering how the hostile action of identity erasure – by cis people I might have to rely on to support me – would play out in the event of not only my being unable to indicate my wish to refuse all or some forms of medical treatment, but also in the event of my death.
From my limited research so far, it seems that if I am somehow left unable to indicate my wish to refuse all or some forms of medical treatment – and I include enforced detransitioning in that – then I need to have in place a so-called living will. Whereas, in the event of my death, however that happens, then a will would seem to be the most appropriate place to set out my wishes for my desired treatment of my remains.
Whilst it wouldn’t be too difficult to prepare these documents – guidance notes and freely downloadable templates are to be found online via Google or other search engines – there are further considerations. And, frankly, they’re really starting to bother me.
What if the people you trust – and they may be friends rather than family – are not people you actually see very often? For example, my employer required me to provide contact details for two next-of-kin to be contacted in the event of my death at work; the names I selected were two good friends, but neither lives nearby. Suppose they couldn’t be reached, or couldn’t get my documents to the powers-that-be in a timely manner? What if, in their absence, a member (or members) of my estranged family were contacted instead? There’s no doubt in my mind that my ex-family would grab with both hands the opportunity to rewrite my history in their image.
And – if I was incapacitated rather than dead – what if the medical people should decide that there were “health reasons” for, say, stopping my estrogen therapy, or removing my breast implants? Would they be required to obtain a specialist’s opinion or would they “treat” first and ask questions later?
After-death aspects are equally disquieting. Again, who would ensure that those responsible for disposing of my remains actually did so in accordance with my wishes? That, for example, I wouldn’t be given a religious or faith-based ceremony and that I wasn’t misgendered in the relevant documentation (death certificates, etc)?
These are questions I now want to find definitive answers to. I want to know that, no matter how much transphobic misgendering and refusal to respect my identity I endure in my present existence, I do at least have some say in the way these issues are treated in hospital and, eventually, at the morgue. If any reader should have any links or other pointers to further sources of (UK-specific) information, I’d be really grateful if you’d leave a note in the comments.
—————
3am – I’m awakened by a sweet summer rain…
Distant howling of a passing southbound coal train
Was I dreaming or was there someone just lying here beside me in this bed?
Am I hearing things?
Or in the next room, did a long forgotten music box just start playing?
And I know – it’s a sin putting words in the mouths of the dead
And I know – it’s a crime to weave your wishes into what they said
And I know – only fools venture where the spirits tread
‘Cause I know – every word, every sound bouncing round my head
Is just static on the radio, static on the radio…
Everything I think I know is just static on the radio
Midnight rendezvous with a pretty girl, wearing a torn and tear-stained gown
Like a ghost ship she appeared from nowhere on a lonely highway and flagged me down
I gave her a lift downtown to the Greyhound station
And in the flicker of the neon lights, she kissed me goodbye
And in the mirror of her eyes I saw my own reflection
And I know – the blind will sometimes lead the blind
And I know – through shadow lands and troubled times
And I know – forsaking love, we seek the signs
And I know – of truths forever hid behind
The static on the radio, static on the radio…
Everything I think I know is just static on the radio
Now there’s a church house about a stone’s throw down from this place where I been staying
It’s Sunday morning, and I’m sittin’ in my truck listening to my neighbor sing
Ten years ago I might have joined in
But don’t time change those inclined to think less of what is written than what’s wrote between the lines?
‘Cause I know – dreams are for those who are asleep in bed
And I know – it’s a sin putting words in the mouths of the dead
‘Cause I know – for all my ruminations I can’t change a thing
Still I hope – there’s others out there that are listening
To the static on the radio, static on the radio…
Everything I think I know is just static on the radio
Ain’t praying for miracles, I’m just down on my knees
Listening for the song behind everything I think I know
Everything I think I know is just static on the radio
Everything I think I know is just static on the radio…
On February 2, 2010, the U.S. Tax Court issued an important decision in O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, ruling for the first time that treatment for gender identity disorder qualifies as medical care under the Internal Revenue Code, and is therefore deductible. [Via GLAD]
In 2002, Rhiannon O’Donnabhain deducted the costs of her hormones, genital surgery and breast augmentation from her federal taxes. The IRS said no in 2005, and she took the case to tax court in 2007. Earlier this week, the court ruled 6-4 in her favour – mostly. They didn’t allow her to deduct her breast augmentation because the evidence apparently showed that her breasts had developed as a result of hormone therapy. (Which might suggest that, if she hadn’t had breast development from hormones, then the breast augmentation deduction might actually have been allowed).
The ruling is available to download here (direct link to PDF, 139pp) and perhaps one of the most interesting parts is in footnote 2 on p63, where the court appears to open the door to the possibility of deducting the costs of FFS from federal taxes:
Respondent also argues that the various surgical procedures petitioner underwent to feminize her facial features in 2000 and 2005 demonstrate a propensity for cosmetic surgery that is relevant in assessing whether petitioner’s hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery were undertaken for the purpose of improving petitioner’s appearance rather than treating a disease.
We disagree. The deductibility of petitioner’s facial surgery, undertaken in years other than the year in issue, is not at issue in this case. However, there is substantial evidence that such surgery may have served the same therapeutic purposes as (genital) sex reassignment surgery and hormone therapy; namely, effecting a female appearance in a genetic male. Both Ms. Ellaborn and Dr. Meltzer testified that petitioner had masculine facial features which interfered with her passing as female. The expert testimony confirmed that passing as female is important to the mental health of a male GID sufferer, and the Benjamin standards contemplate surgery to feminize facial features as part of sex reassignment for a male GID sufferer. Thus, we conclude that the facial surgery does not suggest, as respondent contends, that petitioner had a propensity for conventional cosmetic surgery.
You may remember Sass Rogando Sasot’s moving speech at the UN, “Reclaiming the lucidity of our hearts”, which I linked to here in December last year. She’s now forwarded the following email with approval to repost, which I do.
It’s a more extreme (but not uncommon) illustration of what Sass calls one of the 21st century dilemmas faced by many transsexual people the world over; that of the chasm that too often exists between our real lives and our legal documentation, and the impact this discrepancy can, and does, have on us.
As an aside, it’s worth noting that the situation was only addressed here in Britain six years ago with the passing into law of the Gender Recognition Act – and even then, the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate is not the simple process that some people seem to think it is. Before 2004, in the eyes of the law, transsexual people in Britain simply did not exist. The character Mr. Bumble in Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist may well have had a point when he said “the law is a [sic] ass — a idiot”; unfortunately it’s an ass with a powerful kick.
“You cannot renew your passport as you can’t have dual identity,” said a staff of the Philippine Embassy in Berlin to Jenny T. Ramsey. Jenny didn’t do anything illegal. She’s not pretending to be somebody else, deceptively living two lives. She just epitomizes two of the inconveniences of being a human of transsexual experience: 1) Having a legal sex that doesn’t match one’s actual, lived, and to be a bit scientific about it, neurological sex; and 2) Having a legal name that doesn’t match one’s actual, everyday name. But Jenny’s case is in an entirely different level. And I reckon that, given that there are just very few countries in the world that legally affirms the gender identity of transsexual people, this is one of the 21st century dilemmas of transsexual people: Jenny currently has two legal sexes and two legal names from two different countries.
Jenny is one of the four original founders of the Society of Transsexual Women of the Philippines. Sometime in 2003, Jenny went to Germany to study; she lived in Erfurt with her German partner. In 2006, Jenny decided to undergo sex reassignment surgery in Thailand. During this time, transsexual people (at least, post-op transsexual women) have successfully petitioned local courts in the Philippines to legally change their sex and name. One of them even got married in a civil wedding in the Philippines. But unfortunately, in October 2007, the Supreme Court of the Philippines rendered a decision that this can no longer be done unless Philippines Congress passes a law that would allow such changes. This was known as the Mely Silverio Decision.
Because of the Silverio Decision, Jenny decided to file a petition to change her name and sex from male to female in a German court. She was represented by a top-notch lawyer in Germany. On 23 July 2008, Amskerich Ehrfurt granted Jenny’s petition. It was a groundbreaking case in Germany as Jenny was, as far as we know, the first non-German citizen to be able to change her legal sex and name in Germany. Sometime last year, another Filipino was able to change his legal sex and name in Germany, this time from female to male.
After more than five years of being together, on 2 April 2009, Jenny and her German boyfriend married. Afterwards, Jenny was granted a temporary residence permit with her female name on it. Then Jenny inquired with Ausländer Behorde (German immigration) about what would happen when she travels abroad: Would she use her Philippine passport, hence would travel as “male”? The immigration officers discussed this among themselves and provided this solution: They issued Jenny a Reiseausweis für Ausländer (Travel document for foreigners) bearing her female sex and name. According to www.duesseldorf.de, this passport is a temporary passport and is only issued in very exceptional cases.
On 28 January 2010, Jenny went to the Philippine Embassy in Berlin to renew her Philippine passport. To make sure that Jenny is not illegally staying in Germany, they asked her to show her visa. Jenny showed her temporary residence permit and Reiseausweis für Ausländer. The discrepancy between Jenny’s identity in her Philippine-issued documents and German-issued ones led to the confiscation of Jenny’s passport (though they told her that they are just getting it for “safekeeping”). They said they will raise this issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs of Manila (DFA) and wait for a decision. Given that it’s national election season in the Philippines, this will mean Jenny has to wait.
When in Rome, do what the Romans do – but which Rome?
But wait for what? What could be the possible decision of DFA? I can think of two possible scenarios: 1) DFA honors the change of legal sex and name of Jenny and issue her a Philippine passport bearing a female sex and name. Or 2) DFA doesn’t recognize the decision of the German court and issue Jenny a Philippine passport bearing a male sex and name. Because of the Silverio Decision, Scenario 2 is more probable to happen than Scenario 1. If Scenario 2 happened, I would like to ask the DFA a glaring WHY?
In July 2009, 67 Filipinos were arrested in Saudi Arabia for crossdressing. In reaction to this, Silvestro Bello, a cabinet secretary and top aide of the Philippine president, pulled the when-Rome-do-what-the-Romans-do card and was quoted saying, “When [Filipinos] enter their host country, they should know the culture of their host country.” Crossdressing is a crime in Saudi Arabia. The 67 Filipinos were sentenced to imprisonment and flogging but were pardoned and released.
Now, why am I bringing this up? Pardon my legal ignorance but it seems to me that the Philippines is more bent on honoring and respecting a ridiculous, dehumanizing law, such as the anti-crossdressing law of Arab countries than honoring and respecting a life-affirming legal procedure such as the legal change of sex and name that was granted to Jenny by a German Court.
Yes: It’s such a shame that it’s not Jenny’s mother country that has showed care, compassion, and consideration to her humanity. Well, this just proves that no matter how familiar a place is to you, sometimes it just don’t feel like home. Jenny now considers Germany as her home now as this is the country where she can live her real life, socially and legally. And to the Philippine Embassy in Berlin: It’s not Jenny’s fault that she currently has a dual identity: It’s the fault of the Philippine government as it refuses to recognize and affirm transsexual people’s reality.
During our phone conversation, Jenny and I were musing about what is her legal status now, given that her Philippine passport was confiscated (okay – was kept for “safekeeping”). She’s not yet a German citizen. The Philippine embassy won’t yet issue her a new passport as they don’t want her to have a dual identity. Is she currently a stateless person? A refugee? A possible asylum seeker? We don’t know. All we know is Jenny is willing to renounce her Philippine citizenship anytime.
After all, who needs a citizenship that doesn’t legally affirm your reality?
Saturday 13th February for LGBT History Month 2010
3pm onward: Tea and cakes as we gather at the Clocktower Café, Katharine Street, Croydon.
4pm approx: walk half a mile to the site of Roberta Cowell’s birthplace, 4, Sydenham Road, Croydon
4:30pm approx: presentation at 4 Sydenham Road and photo; walk half a mile to The Bird in Hand.
5pm: arrive at The Bird in Hand, 291 Sydenham Road, CR0 2EL (opens at 5pm).
5.10pm approx: Opening of the exhibition on Roberta Cowell. Readings from her autobiography. Followed by a toast to Roberta Cowell (and photo).
5.30pm: Private screening of XXY, a fascinating and very moving contemporary film about an intersex girl. Uses subtitles. Several very positive reviews if you Google for “XXY DVD”.
The film deals with many issues of relationships between the members of the two families involved. It raises issues about the intersex condition of Alex, the XXY girl. And, if you’re alert, it uses many intersex images, like that of the clown fish which changes sex when it becomes the queen of the colony.
7pm: Discussion of the film.
7.30pm Buffet: all welcome – but please e-mail trans@lgbtcroydon.org.uk by Saturday 6th or as soon as possible afterwards, so we know how many to expect.
—————
About Roberta Cowell:
Roberta Cowell was the one of the first transsexual people in Britain to undergo sex reassignment surgery (in 1951). Having survived the Second World War, Cowell sought psychological help which answered many questions. Cowell realised that over the years she had struggled, ever harder, to maintain a gender identity which was not hers. Adopting a female role, she formally changed her name and had her birth certificate corrected.
She found her new female roles and relationships both enjoyable and satisfying and set her mind on becoming as female, in body, as far as contemporary medicine would allow.
—————
About LGBT History Month:
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trans History Month takes place every year in February. It celebrates the lives and achievements of the LGBT community. We are committed to celebrate its diversity and that of the society as a whole. We encourage everyone to see diversity and cultural pluralism as the positive forces that they are and endeavour to reflect this in all we do. For further information click here. You can also read testimonials of community groups and organisations supportive of History Month here.
The Pope has faced a backlash after urging Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK’s Equality Bill with “missionary zeal”.
Pope Benedict XVI said the bill – which could end the right of the Church to ban gay [and transsexual] people from senior positions – “violates natural law”.
[...]
The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: “Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.
“Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”
“In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”
Peter Tatchell is quoted as saying:
“His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos,” he said.
“He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law.”
And our Prime Minister’s response?
Gordon Brown said he respected the Pope but commenting would be inappropriate.
A stark reminder that those who govern us consider the links between state and religion to be more important than the human rights of the general population.
Further to my recent post about the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s debate on the report on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, transcriptions have been published and are available here. Speeches in English are reported in full; speeches in other languages are summarised, and speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.
The text of the draft resolution and draft recommendation are published as part of a report by the Rapporteur (which itself contains much information about LGBT rights), and can be found here (English, without amendments).
Although the debate took place as scheduled, the voting on the Rapporteur’s report and resolution did not take place.
This is because, as some 80 amendments were tabled at the very last moment, it was not possible to review them all. Consequently the voting has been postponed until April 2010. The majority of those amendments were outrageously homo- and transphobic. Despite this, I gather that the debate was generally positive.
However, in the light of the current saturation coverage in the mass media about the Pope’s attack on the UK’s Equality Bill, it should be noted that the Holy See apparently also deemed it appropriate to attempt to derail the PACE debates. The Holy See’s suggestion for leadership of the European People’s Party, Luca Volonte (Italy) was successful, although its suggestion for the position of judge was not, and attempts to amend the ICPD resolution in line with its wishes failed.
I have it on good authority that this letter (direct link to PDF) was sent on 8 January 2010 by Luigi Ventura (the Papal Nuncio) to some delegates and addressed, among other things, the SOGI debate. Item 1 on the second page of the letter translates into English (via Google Translate) as follows:
1. Draft resolution on “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.” Rapporteur: Andreas Gross, Deputy – Voting: Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The text poses serious problems. We could try to introduce the following ideas:
Reaffirm respect of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention.
Propose a legal definition of “Hate Speech” and reaffirmed that this concept can never limit the freedom of expression.
Introduce a general proposition, which reaffirms the fundamental right to freedom of religious opinions, in public and in private, including matters of morality.
Reaffirm the fundamental right of all persons and faith-based organizations to act according to their moral beliefs and religions.
Reaffirm that the behavior (ethos) moral or religious employers or service providers would not be violated by judgments about the value of the legality of discrimination.
In reference to article 12 of the European Convention, remember that this Article only protects the right of individuals to different sex marriage.
Reaffirm that under international and European law, there is no “right” to marriage or union of persons of the same sex.
If these amendments are accepted, and if the text of the Resolution is unacceptable, Parliamentarians should oppose its approval. For any further information they can contact the Depute Luca VOLONTE, who coordinates the amendments consistent with the position of the Holy See.
As already mentioned, the vote on the SOGI resolution was postponed to April. It’s to be hoped that our representatives at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will reject the Holy See’s attempt to strip the resolution of any and all meaningful substance.
The Bent Bars Project is a new letter-writing project for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, gender-variant, intersex, and queer prisoners in Britain. The project aims to develop stronger connections and build solidarity between LGBTQ communities outside and inside prison walls.
Bent Bars aims to work in solidarity with prisoners by sharing resources, providing mutual support and drawing public attention to the struggles of queer and trans people behind bars.
We are looking for non-imprisoned and formerly imprisoned LGBTQ people who are interested in becoming penpals. In the first month since we initiated the project, we received more than 100 requests from LGBTQ prisoners for penpals, and the requests keep coming. So we are urgently looking for non-imprisoned folks to write to prisoners. We are especially looking for gay/bi men and transwoman to be penpals.
Becoming a penpal can give a person in prison vital emotional support, help prisoners be less vulnerable to violence and assist in building networks and resources for release. Time commitment is whatever you want it to be – writing one letter a month, which can take as little as half and hour, would be great.
We are also looking for folks who want to get involved in the Bent Bars Collective, which coordinates the letter writing program, collects resources for queer/trans prisoners and does public education work on queer/trans prison issues.
Letter writing nights are held at 7pm on the third Thursday of every month at:
London Action Resource Centre
62 Fieldgate Street
London
E1 1ES
Further to my 
