Bishops and Reality

Seldom do Alberta's Bishops allow reality to interfere with their preconceived ideas.  In fact, where Calgary's Bishop Henry is concerned, the idea of reality seems to exist in another dimension entirely where LGBT rights are concerned.  In his latest tirade, carrying the grandiose title "TOTALITARIANISM IN ALBERTA IV", is so profoundly riddle with ignorance, hyperbole and outright paranoid thoughts that it deserves a more detailed tearing down.  

Despite the differing signage, ranging from “Flush Bill 10” to “Everyone Can Pee,” the issues are not just about bathrooms, plumbing and urination, parental rights, safety of children, how people feel, GSAs and an imperfect Bill 10. What is at stake is the very order of creation. (emphasis added)

Apparently, protecting LGBT youth in Alberta schools is now such a profound threat to the Bishop that it now represents an existential threat to the world itself!  Wow ... I had no idea that LGBT, and in particular Trans, kids were so powerful.

Mr. Eggen's guiding principle for best practices is: “self-identification is the sole measure of an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” This foundational statement is simply assumed to be true and no evidence is offered to substantiate the claim.

Such subjectivity is ever expansive and morally problematic. LGBT has now swelled to LGBTTQQIAAP2S. ... The newest addition is the “2S” which denotes being two-spirited, a term used for one who does not fit into the male/female binary. Some have even added “BDSM” for those into bondage, dominance, sadism and masochism.

Oh yes, the dreaded "slippery slope" argument.  Of course recognizing that human sexuality and expression is far more diverse than the simple male/female missionary model that the Bishop seems so hung up on would collapse - a reality that most of us have figured out the hard way.

However, facts, not ideology, determine reality. On April 6, 2016, the American College of Pediatricians, representing more than a hundred pediatricians, issued an important statement concerning gender ideology ... The College’s statement meshes perfectly with biblical and theological truths.

 Let's look at this for a moment.  "Biblical and theological truths" is a key phrase in here.  Let me be abundantly clear about something.  In spite of the Bishop's protestations, we are not talking about biblical or theological notions of truth here.  Bill 10 and the guidelines that came down earlier this year are not about those issues at all - they are about protecting children and creating a safe environment for them.  For all that the Bishop may wish to blather on about "biblical truth", the fact is that he is miles offside here, because there is clear evidence that providing safe, secure environments that acknowledge the realities of LGBT youth provide better outcomes for their education.  (There's a lot more like this)  From the pulpit, the Bishop is free to spout whatever he wishes, but when it comes to objective realities, the facts contradict everything he is saying.

Pope Francis, “the who am I to judge” Pope, has not minced his words: “the gender ideology is demonic.” He includes gender theory among the fundamental dangers of our era, with the same threatening potential as nuclear weapons and gene manipulation and describes it as an attitude with which man creates a new sin that is directed against God the Creator.

I love this.  The political right wing has started to use the language of "gender ideology" in its attacks on gender minorities.  Seriously?  Lovely attempt at trying to obfuscate the discussion by inventing terminology.  Rather than admitting that they are objecting to equality rights for transgender people (which means you have to admit that you are advocating for discriminatory practices), the Bishop borrows a meaningless piece of verbiage and uses it hoping that we won't notice the sleight of hand.

“Beyond the understandable difficulties which individuals may experience, the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation… Sex education should help young people to accept their own bodies and to avoid the pretension to cancel out sexual differences because one no longer know how to deal with it.”

Really?  I wonder if either the Bishop or the Pope realize that most transgender people experience  significant levels of dysphoria from the outset?  That for some, the only option for a viable life is to transition?  Many spend years trying desperately to "accept" the lot that they have been given, only to find that they are perpetually unable to do so.  It isn't merely "accepting their bodies", most have struggled for years to achieve that, and failed.

Bishop Henry might want to actually get to know the realities that transgender people face, the struggles of their lives and how his hostility to them affects their lives before making grandiose pronouncements about how they should be "treated" in his judgment.  

Ethics Is Not A Zero Sum Game

With Alberta's Catholic Bishops having stuck their oar into the secular sphere of public services several times in recent months, making hardline declarations about what their faith supports and does not support.  

Let me be clear, I don't really care if the Catholic Church wants to declare that being LGBT is some kind of mortal sin, or that Physician Assisted Death (PAD) is "morally corrupt".  Those are both moral positions within the context of their faith that the Church is perfectly entitled to ask its membership to abide by.  I may stridently disagree with the rationale they use, but that's another matter.  That isn't the topic I want to discuss today.

In both the matter of school safety for LGBT students and the PAD issue, the Bishops are making this an "all-or-nothing" proposition.  Essentially, they are placing their Church's moral dictates at the top of some imagined hierarchy of rights.  This is neither reasonable or appropriate.

The problem here is the idea that there is some kind of moral absolute involved which trumps everything.  This is far from being a reasonable approach to ethical issues.  The Canadian Medical Association's policy statement on Physician Assisted Death reflects the actual complexities involved. It reflects the fact that a physician must consider far more than their "deeply held faith" (or whatever phrase you want to throw at it).

1. "Consider first the well-being of the patient." This means that the care of patients, in this case those who are terminally ill or who face an indefinite life span of suffering or meaninglessness, must be physicians' first consideration.
2. "Provide for appropriate care for your patient, even when cure is no longer possible, including physical comfort and spiritual and psychosocial support."
3. "Provide your patients with the information they need to make informed decisions about their medical care, and answer their questions to the best of your ability."
4. "Respect the right of a competent patient to accept or reject any medical care recommended."
5. "Ascertain wherever possible and recognize your patient's wishes about the initiation, continuation or cessation of life-sustaining treatment."
6. "Recognize the profession's responsibility to society in matters relating to
. . . legislation affecting the health or well- being of the community . . ."
7. "Inform your patient when your personal values would influence the recommendation or practice of any medical procedure that the patient needs or wants."

Consider these ethics statements for a moment.  They don't say "your faith trumps the patient", nor do they say that a physician must participate directly in a process that they disagree with, or feel is inappropriate.  Far from it.  Rather, the physician is obliged to weigh the entirety of the situation as they see it.

However, we have to recognize that in these situations that the patient is likely psychologically competent and capable of participating in those decisions.  These decisions are not entirely at the whim to the doctor.  The doctor has other considerations they must give weight to.

A physician should not be compelled to participate in medical aid in dying should it be become legalized. However, there should be no undue delay in the provision of end of life care, including medical aid in dying.

The importance of this one statement cannot be underestimated.  Although it does not stipulate that there is a duty to refer, it essentially is saying that the doctor's role is not to confound the patient.  So, if the doctor has reason to suspect that the patient is incompetent, or perhaps that  the desire to end their life is temporary, then the physician needs to act accordingly to ensure that the patient has appropriate psychological supports.  If this is not the case, and all other things being equal, the physician should not act in a manner which confounds the patient's wishes.  There is an important principle at play here - and that is the patient's ability to participate in informed consent.  There is a considerable difference between a patient who is suffering chronic depression that has become suicidal and a patient who is suffering from terminal illness who says "it's time to go", and wants to exert some control over the circumstances of their death.

Similarly, I consider the issue of LGBT supports in the schools another case of weighing the interests of the parties involved to be critical.  Calgary's Bishop Henry has argued that because the Church teachings reject the validity of (in particular) transgender identities, that the Catholic Schools should not be obliged to provide supports for transgender students.  Yet, as much as the Church is free to claim that it doesn't believe that transgender identities are valid, there is clearly a body of students within their schools who are transgender.  A little like Iran's former president saying that Iran has no homosexuals the denial is a bit like sticking one's head in the sand.

However, the role of a school is first and foremost to ensure that their students are appropriately educated.  Even a school with affiliations to a particular religious faith must ensure that the environment is conducive to learning for all of the students who go to that school.  (and yes, there are transgender people who are Catholic in this world, in spite of the Church's teachings)

So, we have an ethical issue here.  The Church's position and past conduct of school administrations has been identified as creating an environment which is counterproductive to the learning needs of LGBT students in general, and transgender students in particular.  So, should the Church's doctrine trump the stated needs of LGBT students to have a safe learning environment?  Do the Bill 10 and related policy guidelines that Minister Eggen has put forward prevent the teaching of Catholic doctrine in those schools?  These various interests exist in a state of mutual tension.  An absolutist position such as the Bishops in Alberta have put forward on the matter naturally compromises the creation of an appropriate learning environment for these students in favour of an insistence on all aspects of a Catholic school reflecting Church teachings.  In taking such a position, the Bishops are essentially telling school boards, teachers and administrators not to follow the ethical obligations of being educators for one particular group of students.  Are Catholic LGBT students not worthy of ethical consideration?  A more reasonable approach would be to acknowledge that these students do exist, and that the schools have a universal obligation to ensure that the learning environment is appropriate and safe.  There is nothing in providing such accommodations which precludes the teaching of Catholic ideals in the classrooms.  LGBT students may not like certain aspects of Church dogma as it relates to them, but the classroom and the church are appropriate places to stand up and challenge those teachings.

Religious Truth is a concept, and aspirational ideal at best.  It deserves to be considered as an aspect of the ethical decisions we all have to make in our lives, but not as a trump card every time a difficult issue comes.

A Little More For Alberta's Bishops To Stew On

Since Alberta's Roman Catholic Bishops seem to have something up their cassocks about transgender students, I thought it would be quite appropriate to post the following article that appeared in Huffington Post  in its entirety:

Two and a half years. That's the average wait time for a transgender child in my region to be seen and assessed by a psychiatrist who specializes in gender dysphoria. 

What can happen in two and a half years? 

I have a transgender child. My child was brave enough to tell me what was happening in his mind and body when he was 8 years old. He told me that nobody would ever love him, and nobody would ever marry him, because he wasn't really the girl he was born as.
He thought nobody would ever love him. He thought something was fundamentally wrong with him, that he was broken, that he was defective. At 8 years old, my child told me he felt he was worthless. No child should feel that way ever for any reason. 

What in the world does this have to do with LGBTQ support guidelines for educators?
Every teacher -- whether they knew what was going on with him or not -- that told him, "Oh, lots of girls go through a tomboy phase..." meant well. But what he heard is "Your brain is wrong. You're a girl." 

Every parent that said, "I'm just worried it will rub off on my child..." doesn't wish their child to go through hardship. But what my child heard is, "You are contagious."
Every time he was made to stand in the girls' line, he was told he was something he's not. Every time he was made to stand in the boy line, he was ostracized and taunted for being different and told loudly by the other boys, "You are not one of us." Every time he was allowed to choose which line to stand in, he was told, "You must show us all this very private thing you are coping with, this thing so huge and challenging half of us will never even attempt to understand it. Declare yourself. Male or female? Are you a weird, wannabe boy, or a freakish, failure of a girl?" 

Does that sound like a harsh interpretation?

What if we forced kids to identify by who had divorced or married parents? Or who had wet their pants beyond age 7? Or who still slept with stuffed animals? Or by financial status, or by who was adopted? 

Why in the world would we ever force children to publicly declare the thing that humiliates them the most, and then categorize and judge them based on those factors? 

Despite a staff full of teachers who meant well, who wanted to support my child's education but were unable to get enough support from their head office to help him the way he needed, I pulled my transgender child from public school. Because I was told that my child's ADHD was the only thing the division could actually help him with. Because it was not until a blog post of mine went viral that parents quit expressing their "concern" that my child was "too troubled" and "should stop calling so much attention to it." 

As if it was something I should just snap my fingers and fix. As if I wasn't doing everything in my power, alone, to try and get him some support, to comfort him when he came home sobbing, when he called me in the middle of the day to tell me he just couldn't take the anxiety anymore. When he was so distraught he couldn't even tell me what was wrong. 

Two and a half years means the difference between life and suicide for thousands of transgender children. If you woke up tomorrow with the wrong set of genitals -- and were then forced to publicly declare to your co-workers and boss that it had happened -- would that be humiliating? Would that impact your ability to do what you're there to do?

When you ask a transgender child to use a bathroom that doesn't coincide with their gender identity, that is exactly what you are doing.

I don't want school divisions to simply provide bathroom support for LGBTQ youth. I want every single staff member in contact with ALL children to be trained in compassionate care of LGBTQ youth. I want the education to be mandatory for staff, and I want parents of LGBTQ kids to have the opportunity to speak publicly and educate parents. No transgender child should ever be outed, publicly misgendered, belittled, dismissed or rejected based on his gender identity or how he presents himself to the world.

My child should never be categorized, labeled, judged and forced to identify based on his deepest, most private internal wars.

MY CHILD SHOULD BE SAFE AND PROTECTED AT SCHOOL.
My child's teachers only meant to help. But some of them lacked the training to reduce his anxiety and exposure as a person who was different. In the span of one school year, my child went from excited to show his true self to his peers -- in the form of a haircut and some new boyish clothes, not even a name change -- to telling me he wished he had never been born and it all could just stop. 

That isn't a far cry from a suicide wish. In just one school year. Now tell me what two and a half years can do. 

LGBTQ health must be prioritized in all areas of life. It is not a fad. It is not elective. If educators do not implement strong guidelines for supporting LGBTQ youth, teachers and parents in schools then children who already struggle to have the desire to keep living have even less hope to cling to. Passive attitudes in building these clear and inclusive guidelines contribute to youth suicide rates. And in ignoring the necessity of these guidelines, you will tell my child, in the absolute clearest terms, that he was right when he thought he didn't deserve the love and respect everyone else does. 

Things can change. LGBTQ kids can grow up with every comfort, safety and support as their cisgender heterosexual peers. The bathroom debate is about so much more than bathrooms. It's about proving to LGBTQ kids that they are as worthy of respect as every other child in each school. It's about proving that we love them, they are not broken and they are safe in school. The struggle won't end when we allow transgender kids to use bathrooms that match their gender, but it's certainly a solid place to start showing them from a very early age that we care, and we are listening and they are safe.

Let's be abundantly clear here.  This isn't about what Roman Catholic theology says about transgender people.  It isn't about what a bunch of adults who have decided to get all uncomfortable about the subject (the same adults who probably can't bring themselves to talk to their children about sex except in the most elliptical of terms, no doubt).  It isn't even about the Bishop's authority with respect to the Roman Catholic school system in Alberta.

This is about one thing, and one thing only:  ensuring that one of the most marginalized groups of students in our schools is able to attend school and learn in a safe, accommodating and welcoming environment.  An environment which singles them out for their "differences", or marks them to their peers as "lesser" beings for whatever reason is unacceptable.  No matter what the theology may say, these children are very real, very much a part of the schools, and they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity like EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF THE STUDENT BODY.

Bishop Henry Returns ...

It has been quite some time since I felt a need to address something that Calgary's Bishop Fred Henry has written.  Then I happened to wander past the Calgary Diocese website and read his latest "pastoral letter" (or whatever his columns on the website are officially known as).  The title is benign enough:  "Heal the Wounds, So Many Wounds ..." 

Unfortunately, what the reader is then subjected to is possibly the most offensive screed the Bishop has written in several years.

It starts off with one of the Bishop's standard attacks on "liberalism", and then goes after Transgender people:

The cutting edge of liberal culture is the attempt to label the two created human sexes, male and female, as arbitrary and unjust impositions on humanity. This involves an attempt to separate sex from gender, that is, the biological fact (human anatomy and chromosomal cellular structure) of the two human sexes from their social and cultural expressions, which they term "gender," and which is seen as totally socially constructed and in no way grounded in nature. 

Then, using such a phenomenon as hormonal treatment and "sex-change operations," they begin to deny the very stability and reality of the two created sexes. After that, they claim that whether or not one undergoes such an operation, one's subjective feeling about what sex/gender one is trumps the physical facts of one's body. 

- See more at: http://calgarydiocese.ca/messages-from-the-bishop/1362-heal-the-wounds-heal-the-wounds-so-many-wounds.html#sthash.jjOtfvFp.dpuf

Lovely, Bishop Henry.  I see that once again you have returned to your old haunts - by attacking that which you refuse to even attempt to understand.  Are you really going to argue that chromosomes define gender?  Or that physical anatomy defines gender?  Still?

I'm going to come back to this topic in a minute, because there are a couple of other gems in the Bishop's screed that I think warrant bringing to your attention.

The soul and the body are in a master/slave relationship, the former legitimately dominating and re-making the latter. For Biblical people, the body can never be construed as a prison for the soul, nor as an object for the soul's manipulation. Moreover, the mind or will is not the "true self" standing over and against the body; rather, the body, with its distinctive form, intelligibility, and finality, is an essential constituent of the true self. 

Let me get this straight - the Bishop wishes to argue that the distinction between gender and sex that there is actual evidence for, is overruled by the mythology of a soul (which may or may not exist - I haven't seen any evidence which objectively substantiates such a claim), and somehow the "soul and body are intertwined", and therefore couldn't possibly be at odds with each other?  Sure ...

Tolerance is a working principle that enables us to live in peace with each other and their ideas. Most of the time it is a good thing. But it is not an end in itself, and to tolerate or excuse a grave evil in society is itself a grave evil. 

Oh, even better.  He doesn't quite go as far as saying it, but essentially the Bishop is saying that transgender people are a "grave evil".   Wow - that's quite a claim, Bishop.  Just what is the evil that transgender people are perpetrating?

Let's come back to the Bishop's complaint that gender and sex are inextricably linked with each other for a moment.  We already know plenty of situations where chromosomes and anatomy don't fully align, such as a woman with a 46 XY karyotype, or perhaps he'd prefer to review Swaab's 2009 paper about brain differentiation during gestation.  Either way, the Bishop's argument that chromosomes or genitalia tell the "whole story" is complete nonsense.

As for gender roles, we know those are in large part social constructs.  The impact of messages in mass media about how boys should behave or what girls should do are pervasive, as are the messages we live with in our social circles.  The effect of these in socialization is neither trivial nor easily ignored.  Yet, we have a lot of transgender people who manage to successfully transition and blend into their new social roles.  If the two were inextricably linked as the Bishop claims, this would seem to be a nearly impossible task, and yet it happens.

As for the Bishop's implicit declaration that transgender people are some kind of "grave evil", I would suggest to the Bishop that he needs to substantiate just what this grave evil might be.  What I see are a lot of people bravely living their lives as honestly as possible.  If the Bishop thinks that this is "deceptive" and "evil", perhaps the Bishop needs to be reminded of the old saw about "walking a mile in another person's shoes".   There are a good many people in the Transgender community as a whole who might justifiably take umbrage at the Bishop's attempt to invalidate their reality and lived experiences.  

That's A Turnabout

When I first started writing this blog, Michael Coren was a regular target for my ire, especially when he would go off spouting right wing talking points about gay marriage.  Quite frankly, I saw little difference between his columns published in the Sun newspapers and the tirades of his then ally Charles McVety.

About a month ago, I saw a segment on CBC's Power and Politics (starts at 1:39:00) where McVety and Coren were talking about Ontario's new sex-ed curriculum.  I was shocked at the irrational flailing about of McVety, and even more stunned by how reasonable Mr. Coren was sounding.  

It turns out that Mr. Coren has had quite a change of heart.  

I applaud Mr. Coren taking steps to change in light of new evidence and information.  While I don't expect to agree with him on all matters in the future, I applaud his thoughtful, reasoned approach.  I wish him well.  

Oh The Dumbf ...

Over at "Crosswalk.com" (no, it's not a site about crossing roads), we find a Dr. White going off on gender identity in the wake of Time's June 9 article "America's Transition"  (hiding behind a paywall, a copy has appeared on Scribd here).

It's a somewhat appalling excuse for writing, especially considering that Dr. White holds a PhD.

Not surprisingly for Time, the author’s bias was thinly veiled:  “Almost one year after the Supreme court ruled that Americans were free to marry the person they loved, no matter their sex, another civil rights movement is poised to challenge long-held cultural norms and beliefs.” 

That certainly sets a tone. 

But she’s right.  Mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and the legalization of gay marriage virtually demand the acceptance of almost any other lifestyle. 

Why yes, being trans is something that people wake up and decide to be one morning for giggles.

In 1980 the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association listed transsexualism as a mental disorder. That entry was later replaced by what psychiatrists called “gender identity disorder. In 2013, it was later modified to mere “gender dysphoria,” which is simply discomfort with the gender a person is living in. Quite a progression in just over three decades, moving from something to be cured to something to be enabled.

Wow... just wow.  In one paragraph, Mr. White has completely misunderstood the DSM, the purpose of it and the evolution of the diagnostic categories in it with respect to transgender people.  First, one has to recognize that the DSM is a descriptive document.  It describes a series of recognizable psychological conditions.  It does not provide any kind of statement as to what objectives treatment should pursue.

Second, Mr. White quite ignoring the work of WPATH over that time, which has evolved considerably from dealing with the polar extremities of masculine and feminine identities, having learned that a simple "transsexual / not transsexual" model simply did not describe the breadth and depth of this tiny community of people.

However, White's argument rests quite firmly on a more serious misunderstanding, and one which depends on a particular understanding of gender identity.

All seemed to be well. 

Time magazine called the case “strong support” for the view that masculine and feminine behavior can be altered.  A 1979 textbook used the case to discuss how human gender identity was flexible and plastic, and how being male or female was the product of social learning and conditioning.  Numerous psychology and sociology texts cited the case as proof that sex roles are basically learned. 

But people didn’t follow the case through to the end.  

Even with the injection of female hormones, the absence of male hormones coming from testicles, and being raised as a female, Brenda did not turn out as Brenda.  In the early 1990’s, a team of researchers caught up with the boy who had been turned into a girl to see how “she” was doing.They found that “she” was no longer Brenda.  “She” was now David – working in a slaughterhouse, married to a woman, and the adoptive father of three children. 

At the age of 14, Brenda decided to start living as a male, and at 15, was told that was indeed what “she” had been born as.  She then announced that “she” had always felt like a male and wanted to become one again.  Brenda was given a mastectomy, male hormones, and constructed genitalia.When researchers dug further, they found that the first time Brenda had been put in a dress, he pulled it off.  

When given a jump rope, he wanted to tie people up with it or whip them with it. 

At nine, he bought a toy machine gun when he was supposed to buy an umbrella. 

His toy sewing machine went untouched because he preferred to build forts and play with dump-trucks. 

He was never interested in make-up, but instead wanted to shave with his father. 

On a trip to New York, he found himself attracted to the Rockettes. 

He even felt the urge to urinate standing up. 

From this, researchers at Johns Hopkins felt they should go back and study other children who had undergone similar operations; boys who, for whatever reason, were born without full male organs, had then been fully castrated, and raised as girls.  Of the twenty-five they were able to locate, ranging in age from five to 16, every single one exhibited the rough-and-tumble play more characteristic of boys than girls. 

Every single one. 

Even at their early age, fourteen of them had already declared themselves to be, in fact, boys – against everything in how they had been raised.  

From this, and scores of other studies, Rhoads concludes that instead of thinking that the difference between the sexes is something learned, or imposed by society, it is rather something larger, something deeply rooted, in our very nature.  It’s part of who we are. It’s not a role that we take on; it’s the very nature of our being.

I get quite angry when I see these people attempting exploit the tragedy of John Reimer's life story to make claims that the case simply does not represent.  Reimer's story is a tragedy on many levels, not just its conclusions, and it offends me deeply that the religious right wing keep dredging it up to imply that transgender people are "deluded" or outright "wrong" in their self-perception.  I have addressed this in considerable detail in past posts here and here.

What the argument Dr. White is making fails to recognize is that during development, the differentiation of the body between male and female physiologies is not a singular event.  We know that genital differentiation takes place quite early in gestation but the brain differentiates takes place at a different time.

However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Knowing this well established fact, the wrap-up of Mr. White's argument is almost laughably sloppy reasoning:

This isn’t about what might truly be, to use the term no longer in vogue, true Gender Identity Disorder.  That would be something to be treated.  It is about maintaining that gender and sex, in a healthy psychology, is not something simply between our ears, but between our legs.  Sexuality is not like a favorite color – something to be chosen, or a preference – it is hardwired into our being.  

But that is precisely what our culture wishes to ignore. 

One of the great questions in all of human thought is “who am I?”  The answer is fast becoming, “I don’t know.”  It is as if our embrace of plastic surgery has led to a sense of being plastic ourselves, stripped of any sense of innate worth or identity.  If human beings have no fixed or permanent essence, if we are “plastic” – subject through technology to alteration, enhancement, mutation, control - then we may do what we will with ourselves. 

It's funny that with all of the evidence we have that White fails to see that it is entirely conceivable that someone may well be born with a feminized brain even if their genitalia appears to be perfectly normal.   In fact, I would go so far as to argue that in fact the transsexual is doing everything possible to maintain a healthy psychological state.

Sincerity Is Hard In Politics

Apparently, PC Leadership Candidate Ric McIver hasn't learned that lesson.

After getting caught in a firestorm over ribbon cutting the "March For Jesus" event the same weekend that others were at the Edmonton Mayor's Pride Brunch, he issues the following rather flaccid retraction:

He says he blames himself for not doing his homework and calls the group’s rhetoric — quote — “ugly, nasty and mean-spirited.” 

He says he doesn’t believe in or support the Street Church anymore and his relationship with it is over. 

McIver plans to continue his run to become Alberta’s next premier and wants the group to remove his name and photos from its website.

Considering that McIver has appeared at these events for multiple years, it seems just a trifle implausible that he didn't know what the group represented.  In fact, given the known links between McIver and Craig Chandler (Chandler managed McIver's campaigns for Alderman in the 1990s, although publicly McIver distanced himself from Chandler after getting elected), and Pawlowski (the organizer of this march), it seems more than just a little unlikely that McIver didn't know what Pawlowski represented and believed.

More to the point, according to the National Post, McIver considers Pawlowski a friend:

Ric McIver is a regular at this city’s March for Jesus: In 2013, he cut the ribbon for the parade. Mr. McIver has said he considers the march’s organizer, well-known local evangelical Artur Pawlowski, a friend.

Let's be clear here, in the light of the long time connections between McIver and Pawlowski, McIver's dodges and attempts to minimize the meaning of what attending Pawlowski's march really means ring hollow.

What Is This? The 1950s???

I have no idea who the parties are behind Airdrie's Footprints For Learning Academy, but someone needs to give them a shake and educate them about a few things regarding gender and sexuality.

Their dress code is something out of the 1950s, with rigid gender roles assumed, and strict rules about who can wear what:

7.  Only one set of conservative earrings (pierced or otherwise) may be worn (by girls only) with one earring for each ear lobe.  They must be subtle and non-distracting.  No other visible piercings are allowed.  All other earrings are to be left out while on school property or at a school event.  Boys may not wear earrings.

You have got to be kidding me.  What exactly does "conservative earrings" mean?  Talk about a vague and undefined concept.

Since when in the last 40 odd years has it been inappropriate for males to wear earrings?  That's been pretty normal in my world since at least the 1970s, and widespread since the 1980s.  Who the heck cares if a boy is wearing earrings or not?

But it gets better.  Much better.

17.  Acceptable clothing items for girls:
Shirts, T-shirts, skirts, shorts, jumpers, dresses, pants, shorts, modesty shorts, sweaters. 

18.  Acceptable clothing items for boys:
Shirts, T-shirts, shorts, pants, sweaters.  Boys may not wear skirts, dresses, jumpers or other clothing and accessories specifically intended for girls.

Wow, talk about rigid gender assumptions.  What is this school going to do with the first Trans* children that happen to cross their threshold?

Besides that, the notion of "specifically intended for girls" is pretty ambiguous these days.  I see plenty of girls wearing all sorts of things, and equally boys are becoming much more flexible in their dress as well.  The notion of "girls things" and "boys things" that existed in some idealized past really don't seem to have the same clarity any longer.

But Alberta Liberal education critic Kent Hehr was quick to point out even public schools like Footprints receive a portion of their operating funds from public coffers. The provincial education ministry provided nearly a $1 million to the Footprints for the 2013-14 school year, about 70 per cent of its total operating budget. 

Hehr noted freedom of expression through clothing choice is not a crime. 

“It’s clear — once you take public money you have to follow the law of the land and develop policies accordingly,” Hehr said. “it doesn’t appear to me that this school has in this case.”

So ... taxpayers paid 70% of this school's operating budget? ... and they are engaging in what I will call subtle homophobia / transphobia by implementing policies like this?  That I have problems with. It has been a long fight in Alberta to begin the process of breaking down the systemic discrimination that LGBT folk experience every day, and it is less than acceptable to me that a taxpayer funded "private school" (it's legally a private school - if it's taking taxpayer dollars, it's _NOT_ private) should be able to create these kinds of ridiculous policies and get away with it.

To the owners of Footprints For Learning Academy, I suggest to you that it would be appropriate to revisit your dress code and related policies.  It's time to lose the destructive rigidity of your policies and replace them with something a little more flexible and reasonable.  Trust me, a boy wearing earrings isn't going to end the world ... and if one walks through the door wearing a dress one day it might just broaden yours a little.

What David Reimer's Story Really Demonstrates

Over at LifeSite, we find one of their editorial staff grossly misunderstanding the tragic story of David Reimer.  

His tragic death emphasized the total failure of one of the most famous gender alteration cases in modern medicine....David Reimer’s traumatic life and horrific death testify that no matter what elaborate theories the unscrupulous attempt to justify in the name of science, nature will always have the upper hand, often at the expense of human life.

The story of David Reimer is important in the canon of understanding gender identity, but not in the way that LifeSite's commentators seem to think:

Parents have a duty to raise their children properly, to demonstrate and teach them what is acceptable and what is not; what is normal and what is not. When parents fail in their duty (often purposely), you end up with the all too common case like the raised-by-lesbians pitiful child TwinCrier links to. 

While they may not be "burning off" anatomy as they (accidentally) did to Mr. Reimer, they are indeed prepping these unfortunate children to make that leap as soon as they reach the age of majority required by most "sex-change" surgeons. Don't mistakenly think the latter is any less insidious than the former: they are all child abuse.

While LifeSite's acolytes try to twist the story of David Reimer as a combination of "liberal science run amok" and evidence that treatment for transgender people is in fact unnecessary, it actually presents something quite different.

Let's consider a few facts.  First, David's cross-gender story starts when his penis was burned off in a botched circumcision.  Then, on the advice of Dr. Money, his parents chose to raise him as Brenda.  Then, as an adult Brenda transitioned to be David.

At no point in this story is there ever any evidence that David identified as female.  In fact, in John Colapinto's biography of David, there is reason to suspect that in fact Brenda fought against being treated as a girl quite strongly.

It is the fact that there is no evidence of David having ever identified as female is ironically consistent with the often described experiences of transgender people.  Where Brenda consistently fought against being raised as a girl, the trans experience of childhood is often analogous in that trans people are similarly persistent in fighting against the gender role that has been assigned to them.

The David Reimer story demonstrates more clearly than anything else that gender identity is not simply a social construct as Dr. Money suspected, but that it has much more fundamental dimensions to it that reach beyond learned constructs.

One of the accusations that the anti-Trans crowd likes to throw around is that Trans people are merely "making a choice".  Yet, if we consider David's struggle a validation of the foundational nature of gender identity, there is a problem with their logic.  If it was "just a choice", would Trans people be so consistent in describing an awareness of being Trans as part of their earliest memories?

The David Reimer case demonstrates the persistence of gender identity, and its fundamental intransigence to attempts to change it.  

Matt Barber Distorts Reality

Over in the far right echo chambers, we find Matt Barber trying once again to associate homosexuality with pedophilia.  

Consider, for instance, a study published in the left-leaning Archives of Sexual Behavior of over 200 convicted pedophiles and pederasts. It found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” This demonstrates, as notes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that “homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.”

We see this bunch of fiction trotted out on a fairly regular basis in the religious right-wing's attacks on homosexuality (and frankly all sexual minorities).  It took me a little bit of digging to figure out precisely which study Barber was quoting from, but it turns out to be W. D. Erikson et. al.'s study "Behaviour Patterns of Child Molesters".

As the University of Toronto's Dr. Cantor points out, this study has been widely critiqued, and the way in which it is often quoted  distorts reality by using imprecise language.

Published estimates of the proportion of pedophiles who offend against male children and are homosexual span a staggering range from a low of 2% (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994) to a high of 86% (Erickson, Walbek, & Seely, 1988). The methods of the authors at each extreme have been criticized, and indeed, both sides are guilty of poor methods. ... At the other end, Erickson and colleagues (Erickson et al., 1988) reported that 86% of their sample of offenders against male children were homosexual. This estimate, however, is based on the self-report of the offenders, and offenders are highly motivated to claim any self-descriptor other than pedophile. In fact, methodologically sophisticated studies of pedophiles rely solely on non-admitting pedophiles (e.g., Blanchard, Klassen, Dickey, Kuban, & Blak, 2001). 

 ...

It is here that the political right takes advantage of imprecise usage. Although non-specialists correctly use the word pedophile, that is, to be without regard for whether male or female children are targeted, the colloquial use of the word homosexual refers to homosexual teleiophiles and not homosexual pedophiles. Thus, statements such as “6–8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1–2 million adult homosexuals” (Walker, 2001) are half truths. Although it might be reasonably said that these perpetrators were homosexual pedophiles, there is no basis on which to believe they were homosexual teleiophiles (i.e., gay men). To refer to the sex in which the offenders’ were erotically interested and not the age is mere sophistry.

The point here is that Barber is using much the same rhetorical device in his argument.  It's a falsehood in a very subtle way.  First of all, it uses the terminology in a subtly imprecise way that blurs lines, second he draws a connection that the evidence being used does not actually support.

This makes perfect sense when coupled with another 2001 study in the same peer-reviewed publication. It found that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men who participated in research were molested by a homosexual pedophile as boys: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.” 

Really?  I love the fact that Barber (and others) are citing a study without specifying which study they are in fact drawing from.  At best, I could make an educated guess or two based on the bibliography at the end of Dr. Cantor's piece, but that would be just a guess.

But, let's look somewhat more closely Cantor's comments, because he draws out an important distinction between molestation by a pedophile and molestation by a non-pedophile:

Although having a genuine erotic interest in children is the strongest predictor of sex offender recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998), some offenders engage in their behaviors for other reasons (Barbaree & Seto, 1997). Little is known about these other offenders. It is possible that at least some are pedophilic, but lie beyond the ability of psychophysiological tests to identify them. Other factors have been suggested as causing their sexual assaults on children, including alcoholism and anti-social personality (e.g., Marshall, 1997). It is well-established, however, that sex offenses committed by non-pedophiles are largely associated with incest, while the extra-familial offenders are more likely to be genuinely pedophilic (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2001). Furthermore, very few incest victims are male. Estimates are typically 6–8% (e.g., Carlstedt,Forsman, & Soderstrom, 2001; Langevin, Wortzman, Dickey, Wright, & Handy, 1988), substantially lower than the overall proportion of males among all victims (i.e., 20–30%). The most logical conclusion is that sex offenses comprise two phenomena: genuine pedophilia producing offenses against either male or female, extra-familial children and an incest pattern producing offenses against primarily female children. This conclusion is also consistent with the data suggesting that offenders against male children have more victims than offenders against female children. The offenders against male children are more likely to be genuinely pedophilic, while a sizeable group of the offenders against female children are incest offenders and have only a finite number of potential victims. (Additionally, incest offenders are usually removed from contact with their underage relatives after discovery of the offenses.) Nonetheless, the data provide little indication that homosexual teleiophilia plays any greater role in sexual offenses by non-pedophiles than those by pedophiles.

It is perhaps the last sentence of a rather dense paragraph that stands in stark contrast with the conclusions that Barber and others draw:

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Although clearly not all “gay”-identified men and women abuse children, or were abused as children, the verifiable reality is that an alarmingly high percentage of them do and were. As with most forms of abuse, the cycle is both circular and vicious. “Born that way?” Not so much. “Made that way?” Sadly, it appears so.   

Of course, they love to try tying it all back to cases like this:

Egan has filed suit against Singer and several other high-profile Hollywood figures for homosexually assaulting him and other boys repeatedly at several “‘infamous‘ coke and twink pool parties” back when Egan was 15 and Singer was 32. (In the “LGBT” vernacular “twinks,” also called “chicken,” are highly sought-after underage boys used for sex by adult “gay” men.) 

Let's be clear about something here.  At 15, we are not talking about a child any more.  Sexually speaking, the individual is pretty well developed at that point, whether male or female, and is likely as not actively exploring their own sexual identity.  (and yes, experimenting with homosexuality is not unusual or abnormal).  Age of consent laws in this part of the world are a mixed bag, but most recognize that there can be consensual sex happening somewhere between the ages of 14 and 16.

Further, the technical definition of a pedophile refers to an attraction to children who have not undergone puberty.

Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger.^[1][2] Nepiophilia (Infantophilia) is pedophilia,^[13] but is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (ages 0–3 or those under age 5).^[13][28] Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.^[29] The DSM-5 does not list hebephilia among the diagnoses; while evidence suggests that hebephilia is separate from pedophilia, the ICD-10 includes early pubertal age (an aspect of hebephilia) in its pedophilia definition, covering the physical development overlap between the two philias.^[30] In addition to hebephilia, some clinicians have proposed other categories that are somewhat or completely distinguished from pedophilia; these include pedohebephilia (a combination of pedophilia and hebephilia) and ephebophilia (though ephebophilia is not considered pathological).^[31][32]  

These distinctions are far too subtle for the likes of Barber, whose stock-in-trade is political activism, and reality isn't a big issue to him.  Distorting science doesn't exactly bother him as long as it enables him to put forward more fear-based tactics.  

The Far Right's Scorched Earth Policy

The last few weeks has been a series of horrifying revelations for supporters of LGBT rights.  What it has unveiled is the "scorched earth" approach that the far right in the US is willing to pursue.

First it was Kansas's House of Representatives passing a hideous "Jim Crow" law, only to have their Senate balk at it.  Kansas, it seems was only one head of the hydra, with Arizona's state Senate passing a very similar law a mere week later.  As writers at Alternet point out, Republicans in several states are pushing similar legislation:

Republicans in Arizona, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho, Ohio, Mississippi, and Oklahoma have now introduced bills that would also grant religious zealots the right the segregate their businesses against LGBT Americans. Significantly, all of these bills were introduced this year. 

These kinds of laws are naturally appalling to reasonable people.  These aren't reasonable people pushing this legislation.

At the same time, we have anti-gay activists Scott Lively and Peter LaBarbera getting together to push for Russia-style anti "gay propaganda" laws.   Okay, these two are to some extent seen as a bad joke in their home country.  That doesn't mean they can be safely ignored.  It's pretty well documented that Lively has been influential in both Uganda and Russia creating anti-gay legislation in recent years.  It is through the activism of people like these two that the "Tea Party" Republicans get the idea of who to demonize - and the target is LGBT people.

In Canada, these "right to discriminate" ideas have been soft-peddled under the rubric of "conscience rights" - especially with respect to the abortion debate, and until recently "Conscience Rights" were part of the WildRose Party of Alberta's platform - so it's not like Canadian political discourse is immune to the influence of these ideas.

The optimist in me wants to believe that this is the thrashing of a dying movement.  Unfortunately, I think it really tells us that the price of the liberty and equality that the LGBT movement has gained since the 1960s truly is eternal vigilance.  There will always be a significant and very vocal group of people who will be using LGBT people as the choice target for demonizing with their politics of fear and division. 

Apparently Ms. Landolt Doesn't Read Her Own Words

Over at LifeSite News, we find REAL Women Canada's Gwen Landolt trying to backtrack on what she said so publicly last week.

The pro-family, pro-life conservative organization REAL Women of Canada is calling a CBC report “absolutely not” accurate that quoted president Gwen Landolt as if she tacitly approved Uganda’s contemplation of the death penalty for practicing homosexuals. 

“I don’t know if the CBC did this deliberately or whether it was accidental and they misunderstood [my position],” said Landolt to LifeSiteNews.com. “My whole life I have been utterly opposed to capital punishment and I would never make homosexual execution the exception.”

Yes, well, when your own press release states rather unequivocally the following:

Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, has abused his position as a cabinet minister to impose his own special interests in the foreign countries of Uganda, Kenya and Russia. 

He awarded $200,000 of Canadian taxpayers’ money by way of the Department of Foreign Affairs to special interest groups in Uganda and Kenya to further his own perspective on homosexuality.  He also insulted the speaker of the Ugandan Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, at a meeting of the International Parliamentary Union in Quebec City when he criticized Uganda for its position on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  In response, Ms. Kadaga stated that Uganda was a sovereign nation and not a colony of Canada, and no one could tell Ugandans what to do. 

In case Ms. Landolt hasn't been paying attention, Uganda is proposing a bill which would result in the imprisonment or execution of LGBT people in Uganda.  Let's not mince words here - LGBT people in that country face the most severe punishments possible under law for simply being alive.

So, Canada isn't supposed to protest what is clearly a violation of fundamental human rights in Uganda?  Apparently not, Ms. Landolt says the following:

Landolt stated that REAL Women would “never support the death penalty in any circumstance.”
“I would never ever in a hundred years say the execution of people is suitable and appropriate. Never,” she said.

Funny.  Out of one side of her mouth, she says that she doesn't support the death penalty, and yet Baird, acting on behalf of Canada at a diplomatic summit, shouldn't raise these issues?  Her logic is circular to say the least.

Saying nothing is tacit approval - especially of laws which have been so widely publicized on the world stage during their formulation.

CBC interviewed Landolt at the time, reporting: “When asked about reports that Uganda has considered the death penalty as punishment for having homosexual relations, Landolt said, ‘It may be unwise by Western standards, but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?’” 

Landolt told LSN that her original comment to CBC was about the newly enacted Russian law to eliminate homosexual indoctrination of minors, which allows for jail terms for offenders of up to three years. 

Landolt said that she told CBC that while she didn’t think Russia’s move was “necessarily a human rights violation” she did think however that it was “unwise by Western standards” adding as an aside, “but who are we to interfere in a sovereign country?” 

Having read through Landolt's original press release, it is my opinion that she is lying through her teeth trying to undo some of the damage she did to her own organization.

Frankly, whether Landolt's comments to CBC were "specific to Russia" or not is irrelevant.  The laws recently passed in Russia are every bit as flawed and damaging as those proposed in Uganda.  About the only difference is the severity of the punishments.  The laws in Russia have rightly been criticized for being so loosely worded that just about anyone could be convicted of "homosexual propaganda".

Further, the presupposition of such a law is that there is such a thing as "homosexual propaganda" in the first place.  Let me be emphatically clear here - it is only in the minds of those who are irrationally opposed to homosexuality that there is any notion that homosexuals "recruit" people.  If you think a "pride parade" or a rainbow flag is somehow "propaganda", then chances are you haven't exactly got a clear understanding of the purpose, place and history of such things. 

Wow, Walt - Generalize Much?

If the latest utterances from Walt Heyer were the first you had ever heard from him, you could easily be forgiven for believing that the man had never had anything to do with the transgender community.  

Women—Simply Men with no Snoopy 

The real war on women today is being waged on the female gender by men who remove their tallywacker (Snoopy) and declare they are full-fledged women. 

These people, transgenders who are just men with no Snoopy, can use your restrooms and change the gender designation on their birth records and other ID to female. They’ll show you birth gender females a swinging thing or two by legally proving that you females are the same as men, just with no Snoopy. 

Transgender women, manufactured from men by surgery, have more protections under the law then you pesky women who were born female. 

Depending on what your view of female is, you may see transgender females (i.e., men who removed their tallywacker) as lovable little fuzzballs who need to be protected from the wacko, transphobic, homophobic, bigoted gender normals who were born male and female. 

Perhaps you see transgender women as men who enjoy what looks like childish play gone psycho with dress-up taken to extreme–copious amounts of makeup, flamboyant mannerisms, surgical breasts, facial work and yes, the removal of the old useless trouser snake known as "Snoopy." 

This post was prompted by talking with a woman I know who is outraged that birth gender women do not march by the thousands against lawmakers. She is appalled that a man without a dangling participle is made legally equivalent to a birth female. She feels that laws that protect surgically-produced replicas of women denigrate and ridicule real women and the female gender. 

In effect, the lawmakers are now saying that women are simply men with no Snoopy. Like it or not, it is the sign of our times.   

Walt Heyer

Apparently in Heyer's fevered mind, trans people are now part of the "war on women".  I'm not sure how he arrives at this, since it is conservative Republicans who are busily passing laws that disproportionately affect women for the worse, making reproductive health care all the harder to access, or forcing unwanted invasive procedures on women.

His characterization of transgender people as a whole sounds like something out of a couple of nights spent getting drunk in a drag bar, on par with the research that Bailey did for his book a few years ago.  It's funny how Heyer comes up with all sorts of generalizations about trans people, and yet I would wager he wouldn't be able to identify half of the trans people he interacts with on a daily basis.  

If recognizing women of transsexual history as women is somehow "denigrating" or "ridiculing" natal women, I'd love to hear just how that works.  I have yet to meet a transsexual whose life and experience could be argued as "denigrating" of women.  The only people that make such arguments are usually Radical Feminists and ultra-conservative religious demagogues who seem to think that womanhood (or manhood) are defined by chromosomes.  I have never seen a coherent argument which supports the contention that a MtF transsexual is somehow co-opting the female experience.

If Heyer was to actually think things through, what he would realize is that in many respects the places where law has engaged with the language of gender, it is no longer useful to do so.  Does it matter if your driver's license stipulates gender?  Probably not.  Last I checked, women can be just as lead-footed as men, and the speeding ticket is the same either way.  Outside of certain statistical applications, gender is utterly irrelevant.

Of course, in areas such as health care, women have specific needs that must be met that a male bodied person will never need.  I know of no transsexuals who stand in opposition to proper medical care for women.

Frankly, I'm beginning to suspect that Heyer is just jealous of the successful transitions that others have made simply because of his own failings.  

Reasons For A Boycott Of The Sochi Games

In light of John Baird's recent comments regarding Russia's recently-passed anti-gay laws which basically outlaw any "gay propaganda" (such as two people of the same sex holding hands), I'd like to spend a bit of time talking about why a boycott of the Sochi games, along with generally isolating Russia politically is needed right now.

Baird described how he saw the roots of the issue take hold during a meeting of G8 foreign ministers in May 2012. 

“I can recall being in Washington when (then U.S. secretary of state) Hillary Clinton was chairing the G8 foreign ministers meeting and we put, as part of our statement, support for sexual minorities. Russia put an asterisk beside it saying they were not on board,” he said.

“This did not just pop out of nowhere.”

 He's right about one thing - this didn't "pop out of nowhere".  While Canada's Foreign Affairs minister cannot point the finger at the source of this vile piece of legislation, I can.  Take a look south of the US border, in particular to one Scott Lively, who has been exporting the American evangelical version of homophobia since the 1990s.  In the mid-2000s, Lively made a speaking tour of Russia where he started the process of advocating for stricter anti-gay laws.

Make no mistake about it, Lively even goes so far as to try taking a significant amount of credit for the laws that Russia has recently passed in one of his columns for WND.

I am personally very pleased to see this development, having called specifically for legislation of this sort in my speaking tour of the former Soviet Union in 2006 and 2007. During that tour, which began in the Russian eastern city of Blagoveschensk and ended in St. Petersburg, I lectured in a variety of venues including numerous universities, churches and conference halls, and met with numerous government leaders at various levels of influence. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/the-key-to-pro-family-victory-if-we-really-want-it/#O7T36fR8MIvCQfQ0.99 

Now, the fact that this is an export of the worst aspects of American-style religious evangelism is almost secondary to the discussion.  LGBT people in North America are well aware of who Scott Lively is, and just what he represents.

However, this is the first of the reasons that I am going to raise as to why something stronger than diplomatic arm-twisting is required.  Whether we like it or not, Canada's current government is rapidly becoming seen as no better than the US when it comes to foreign affairs.  The positions taken are ridiculously absolutist, and worse often end up tacitly condoning activities which the majority of its population do not approve of.  Both the United States and Canada need to be seen to be moving definitively against these laws for one basic reason:  failure to do so gives the extremists at home the excuse they need to push towards similar laws here.

Think I'm kidding?  Take a look at the tone of LifeSite's article on Russia's laws:

While Russians certainly do not want to encourage homosexuality, by no means do they criminalize homosexuality, nor do they discriminate against homosexuals, as some media have claimed. Homosexuals enjoy the same privileges as all other Russians, but they may not promote homosexuality as something positive among children in the same way as Mayor Bloomberg wants to eliminate sugary drinks, and Michelle Obama wants to get unhealthy foods out of school cafeterias.  

The media has been portraying the law as an unreasonable measure pushed by “radical religious groups.” But this cannot account for why the lower house of the Russian parliament approved the bill unanimously, with only one abstention. Russia can hardly be described as a religious nation, but the law has overwhelming support in the legislature.
Russians have consistently denied homosexual groups parade permits, sparing its children and the public at large the ludicrous and disturbing behavior on show in the squares and streets of Europe and America. 

Similarly the news reports have highlighted episodes where some LGBT persons were victims of violence, without highlighting that the vast majority of the demonstrators at the parliament while the law was being passed were in favor of the law, and that the violence had nothing to do with the vast majority of demonstrators. 

The law prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality among children simply codifies that Russia truly is interested in protecting its children, not that is interested in persecuting homosexuals. The fact is, that homosexuality is associated with almost a 20 times higher risk of HIV/AIDS, and other bad health statistics like higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and even suicide. It is no wonder that Russians want to protect their children from embracing homosexual lifestyles. 

What the articles authors conveniently leave out is that the definition of "homosexual propaganda" used in the Russian legislation is so broad that it effectively outlaws being gay.  Full stop.  The notion of propaganda includes holding hands, having or displaying the pride flag, or even just looking gay when it comes down to it.  Legitimate political advocacy, such as speaking out for human rights on behalf of LGBT people is considered propaganda, as is providing educational content.  In short, while being gay in Russia isn't strictly illegal, they have made any expression of homosexuality whatsoever illegal ... it amounts to the same thing.  (I'm not at all sure how these laws play when we are talking about the transgender population - especially transsexuals - I suspect it could get really nasty fast).

Which brings me to the second reason why I think that a boycott of the Sochi Games is a reasonable response.  Quite frankly, the IOC's own charter would justify yanking the Sochi Games entirely.

1. Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.2. The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious developmentof humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.

I think that when a country moves against its own citizens as blatantly as the Russians have, that country is in violation of the very fundamental principles in the first two clauses of the Olympic Charter.

Since the IOC has been reluctant to speak out against the Russian laws, especially since we have considerable reason to believe that these laws will be enforced against foreign athletes and spectators during the games,  speaking up with a boycott of the Sochi Games sends a message to both Russia (whose pride and honour is resting upon the success of the Sochi Games), and the IOC, that laws which unreasonably attack the freedoms and civil liberties of a nation's citizens are not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

I have heard others in the LGBT rights movement in Russia say that they do not agree that a boycott of the Sochi games is appropriate.  I disagree.  Isolating the Russian power structure, both through diplomacy and direct action against the state is a clear statement:  "You will not attack your own citizens without it being noted, and you will absolutely not endanger the citizens of any other nation either".

The third point that I would raise is that in today's era, it is long past time to take laws of this nature and expose them for what they truly are.  We've been through this before in recent history - whether we are discussing Stalin's overly heavy handed authoritarianism, or Hitler's maniacal "Final Solution".  Both boil down to the state attacking its own people.

Under no circumstances should the world look upon this and simply try to shrug it off.  This is criminal and it endangers otherwise peaceful members of the society.  Such a law is as unacceptable in Russia as it is in Canada, the United States or Uganda.

It is time for the world community to stand up and be heard ... before we have another genocide.

Book Review: Sex Change - It's Suicide by Walt Heyer

I have spent the last few days wading through Walt Heyer's latest self-publish book entitled "Sex Change - It's Suicide".

I'd like to say that it brings something new to the table.  It doesn't.

Frankly, this book is a mess.  It consists largely of the author pounding on the table and blaming the high suicide ideation/attempt rate identified in the 2010 NTEC study on the treatment community.

He doesn't really make any new arguments relative to what he argued in "Paper Genders".

Heyer has tried to make the case that the current treatment for transsexuals is horribly flawed.  This is largely predicated on his own disastrous attempt to transition in the early 1980s.  More or less, his claim is that because he transitioned while suffering from an undiagnosed dissociative disorder that everybody else who attempts transition is suffering from something other than what they think.

Unfortunately, Heyer makes enormous leaps of inference and asserts his position as fact without substantiating his position.  The majority of his evidence is anecdotal, or it is made in reference to deeply flawed research which has been largely debunked.

Heyer is no friend of the transgender community.  Although he speaks the words of compassion and advocacy for appropriate treatment, his underlying agenda is to prevent transgender people from having access to the treatment programs that are known to be effective.

[Update 16/08/13]
Heyer seems to have pulled the original Sex Change - It's Suicide title, and re-released under the title "Gender Lies and Suicide"

The summary of the book appears to be more or less identical to "Sex Change - It's Suicide" version, so I doubt there's anything particularly new other than a change of title.
[/Update]

[More after the jump]

Walt Heyer, Detransition and the WPATH SOC

Running around the internet, and speaking in various venues is a somewhat rare creature by the name of Walt Heyer who claims to be an "ex-Transsexual".  For the most part, I would ignore the man's claims, but I think it is important to review his position, as he continues to be a very vocal opponent of the treatment options open to transsexuals today - in particular he is overtly hostile to the idea of GRS (referring to it as "fraudulent", but also he is overtly hostile to the legal accommodations such as changing of gender markers on legal identification documents.  

As such, he represents a significant problem to the advocacy for equal rights for transgender people as a whole.  I spent a considerable amount of time a while ago reviewing Mr. Heyer's autobiography and his "Paper Genders" book.

Mr. Heyer’s case presents an excellent example of the importance of the principles embodied in the more recent standards of care, as well as serving as a counter-argument to those who argue that medical treatments related to cross-gender identity should be available “on demand”.

Mr. Heyer presents himself as a “former transsexual” or “ex-transsexual”.  He claims to have transitioned, had Gender Reassignment Surgery and subsequently de-transitioned after several years living as a woman.  He is actively campaigning against the treatment currently made available for transsexuals, mostly within the circles of the religious right wing of American political discourse.

However, much of Mr. Heyer’s assertions need to be understood in the context of his own history, and how his past aligns with respect to the WPATH SOC. 

[Warning - This is a lengthy essay]