And The Peter Weighs In

Right on cue, leading wingnut over at AFTAH has weighed in on the Birth Certificate issues I mentioned yesterday.

Says The Peter(™):

First, it’s utterly reprehensible that anyone in the medical community would be complicit in facilitating a psychological disorder by amputating healthy body parts. There is a condition known as either apotemnophilia or Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID) that is characterized by the desire to amputate a healthy limb. It is useful for comparison in that it is thought by many to be closely related to Gender Identity Disorder (i.e., transsexualism), which society is increasingly accepting as a valid identity that emerges from biological influences and whose behavioral manifestations are morally legitimate.

Let's start with the obvious things here. Mistake number one is LaBarbera's insistence that transsexualism be compared to apotemnophilia. Frankly, I don't buy that argument to begin with. It rests upon the very shaky assumption that transsexuals transition and have gender surgery because they are fixated upon the physical change that surgery will bring. Except for Bailey/Blanchard/Lawrence, few in the medical community actually believe such a premise. The 'autogynephilia' hypothesis tends to rest upon declaring transsexuals as liars when they discuss motivations other than the physical for wanting to transition.

Unsurprisingly, The Peter cites Anne Lawrence. There's a lot about Dr. Lawrence I respect and admire - but her "autogynephilia" hypothesis doesn't impress me - especially when it runs contrary to so much other data.

Most people, rightly in my view, recoil in horror at this decision. But it is difficult to see how amputating a healthy arm or leg is substantively different from amputating a healthy penis or breasts.

If that was all that gender transition was about, I might almost agree with that. The reality is that gender transition is much more about what's between the ears than the physical changes. Yes, the physical changes are important - do not make the mistake of assuming I trivialize their role in transition - but they tend to reinforce and support the journey that the individual is making in their heart and mind.

Second, these two men remain men even without their penises, even with hormone-induced or prosthetic breasts, and even with hormone-induced female-ish voices. As I’ve written before, my mother was no less a woman following her mastectomy, hysterectomy, and oophorectmy than she was before her surgeries. The disordered desire of these two men does not change objective reality.

So...tell me, Peter. Since you clearly understand that womanhood (or manhood) is not completely tied to the physical, what makes you think that it is impossible that a woman may have been born into a male body?

Finally, these two men are not merely asking the government to become complicit in their disordered delusion; and they are not merely asking the government and all of society to accept their delusion as reality; they are also asking the state to commit fraud. They are asking the state to affirm in a legal document a falsehood. Even these two men acknowledge that they were born male. If they hadn’t been born male, they couldn’t have had a “sex-change” operation.

Ummm...no, it's not committing fraud. What The Peter is whining about is not fraud - any more than a name change is a commission of fraud. The government has every right (and likely a requirement) to keep the old and revised versions on file, just as they would with a legal name change.

To say that it is fraud, one would have to demonstrate an intent to deceive. In this situation, we must recognize that the Birth Certificate is an important document for someone establishing citizenship, or applying for a passport. Why should these people be subjected to additional scrutiny every time they apply for key identification documents?

The problem that The Peter has here is that he doesn't want to admit that transsexuals are real people, with real lives. He sees transfolk as sinful, delusional and liars.

Unfortunately, what he is wanting to propagate is a pattern of ongoing, systemic discrimination that someone who transitions across genders experiences. A birth certificate with an old name, or a wrong gender marker on it can very quickly turn into an excuse for being fired from a job, or one finds their passport application suddenly comes back with demands for more information or proof of something or another. Every time you apply for a passport, suddenly you go through the process of 'outing yourself' one more time to somebody (who probably doesn't care, but when transsexuals are assaulted or worse with frightening regularity, you never know)

Already the government has been complicit in this monumental deceit and delusion by allowing them to change their “gender” designation “on their driver’s licenses, passports and Social Security Card.” Just as the medical profession acts unethically when amputating healthy body parts in the service of a delusion, so does the government act unethically when changing legal documents to affirm a falsehood in the service of a delusion.

Unfortunately, he doesn't even know what a delusion really is:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

Okay, let's explore this in the context of transsexualism for a moment. A transsexual presents at a therapist's office, and the commonly held assumption is that the narrative is "I'm a woman in a man's body". (A gross oversimplification of what really happens, but it will suffice for now)

So, from an external perspective, we have someone who is quite aware that they are physiologically male. There is no question of their awareness of this. The trickier question is establishing whether the person is in fact psychologically female.

The second part of the problem is harder to establish, and in fact is why the therapy process can be so important. Someone who has lived a good portion of their life in one gender will have a lot of adaptation to go through before they will be able to live successfully in their chosen gender. Whether the individual is willing and able to make that adaption successfully is a pretty good indication of how real the latter is. (Trust me - someone who is a man will not find it easy to fit into a woman's world - and the converse is also true, and is in fact one of the driving forces that leads transsexuals to pursue transition.

It's very hard to describe a transsexual as deluded. They are, if you read the literature, excessively aware of the reality of their situation, and the challenges that they face are a combination of internal and external stresses that need to be resolved.

LaBarbera is simply demanding that more obstacles exist for an already marginalized population. Where is the spirit of Christian teachings in that position?

Bigotry Of The Ignorant

There are some things that just make me angry - and bigotry that is founded squarely in ignorance is one of them. In this case, one of my netbots dug up an article from "Touchstone" magazine's blog "Mere Comments" talking about some of the legal hoops that transsexuals have to jump through in order to be able to live their lives authentically and in peace.

However, these unfortunate "women" have been able to designate themselves as females on their drivers licenses, passports, and Social Security cards. This has some logic to it, as a patrolman stopping one of them on the road would be confused by M for male on the drivers license, possibly, though the photo would set him straight, perhaps.

I'll ignore the sniping use of quotes here, and the way that he's snidely talking about changing the gender marker on key documents. He's missing the point completely - there is an essential need to be able to make those changes. Most transsexuals do not want to 'out themselves' every time that they apply for a driver's license, passport or whatever.

I can't remember the last time I had to produce my birth certificate, so it is not likely that a change will really protect them from harassment--it's not like a transsexual will show his birth certificate to the guy sitting on the barstool next him.

I can only imagine that the author of this screed has never applied for a passport in either Canada or the United States. For the majority of the population, the birth certificate is one of the key documents for their application. There are two reasons for a transsexual to request an amended birth certificate. First of all, it reduces the issues and complications in applying for other civil and legal documents. Second, why should a transsexual be subjected to additional scrutiny every time they apply for legal documents such as passports? You have to expect that seeing a birth certificate with an old name and gender designation will raise all sorts of questions for someone processing a passport application, or replacing a lost driver's license.

The birth certificate is a historical document. At such and such a time in such and such a place so and so was born--and he was born with male equipment..... Now perhaps these two plaintiffs, who have altered their bodies, now feel entitled to alter history as well. The right to rewrite documented history is apparently now a Civil Right, denied because the surgery was done in Thailand.

The civil right being infringed upon here is the right to live one's life in relative peace, with a degree of privacy about one's past. If you have to 'out' yourself every five years to replace a passport, that just creates additional stress on the individual that is unnecessary. Remember, a transsexual is not a criminal for being transsexual.

The silly bit about this clown's rant is that he doesn't seem to recognize that the issuance of an amended birth certificate doesn't mean that the government destroys the original, rather, it means that there are two in the same file, one with a newer date. From a vital statistics perspective, there is no issue here - all that has happened is that the government has issued an amended document which enables someone to blend into the fabric of society with minimal disruption.

One of the commenters makes the following snide comment:

I think they should be allowed to change the sex on the birth certificate ... if they pass a blood test showing that they have changed their chromosomes.

This is the kind of ignorance that just makes me furious. This kind of ignorant attitude presupposes that gender is embedded entirely in the chromosomes. It isn't, and there's much more to gender than that, and it's beyond rude to make such a broad assertion. There are all sorts of psychosocial aspects to gender, as well as some aspects of identity which "just are" - and sometimes that 'just is' identity doesn't align with the body someone was born with.

So Harper's Lease on Political Life Has Been Extended

So, Ignatieff decided to let the Con$ have their budget ... sort of.

I won't say I'm thrilled with this - Harper is a destructive PM, and the sooner he's gone the better in my opinion.

However, Ignatieff has done something that Dion never managed to do - position Harper so that he has to compromise.

Ignatieff's comments are interesting and articulate:

In the face of this crisis, we have a government that has mismanaged our public finances for the last two years.

The Conservatives chose reckless spending and irresponsible tax policy over prudence and fiscal discipline. They drove Canada towards a deficit—long before this recession began. And, in so doing, they harmed the federal government's ability to act in the national interest in times of crisis.

For that failure—the failure to plan and act responsibly as a government—we hold them responsible.

This is the first time any of the opposition parties have held the Con$ up to responsibility for their behaviour since taking power. Ignatieff has signalled that he's willing to reach back and slap the conservatives about for their irresponsibility from day one.

Yesterday's budget is a flawed document.

It doesn't go far enough to protect Canadians who have lost—or will lose—their jobs.

It extends EI benefits but fails to extend EI eligibility.

It opens the door for attacks on pay equity for women.

It does not seize on the wealth of opportunities in the green economy.

It breaks their promise to all provinces from only two years ago on equalization.

It attaches strings to infrastructure dollars that may delay projects and delay jobs.

It promises to sell government assets for cash, without saying which assets and for how much.

And it lacks a credible plan for getting us out of the $85-billion hole the government will dig us into over the next five years.

I like this summary of the budget's shortcomings. Ignatieff has called the Con$ervatives out on their failings in this budget, and in doing so has shown Canadians that unlike Dion he is able to articulate the failings of the Con$ clearly, and concisely.

Accountability is something that Stephen Harper has always said is important. I agree with him.

But this budget does not include one word about accountability.

We will require regular reports to Parliament on the budget's implementation and its cost — one in March, one in June and one in December.

Each of these reports will be an opportunity to withdraw our confidence should the government fail Canadians.

We will vigilantly monitor its effects on our economy and on every region of our country.

We will be watching like hawks to make sure the investments Canadians need actually reach them.

To be absolutely clear, this is the opposition doing their jobs - correctly. I must applaud this, because Ignatieff has just put Mr. Harper in a position where he is obliged not only to carry out the actions he has promised, but Ignatieff has guaranteed that there are multiple points of review - any one of which can be used to take down a government that is failing to enact its promises.

Ignatieff has just put Mr. Harper into the position of having to live up to his often promised, never delivered accountability - at a time when Canadians will be paying very, very close attention to their government's behaviours.

We Need "Conscience Laws" For This???

The religious bigots in both Canada and the US have been crying for so-called "Freedom of Conscience" rules/laws for medical practitioners.

I have said before that such laws will be used as a cloak behind which the free practice of bigotry and discrimination can be practiced. Even without such laws, we find things like this happening in Canada:

Andrea Markowski said she and her partner Ginette were stunned when the Winnipeg doctor told them during a "meet-and-greet" appointment she was uncomfortable accepting them as patients and had never treated "people like you" before.

The doctor said she only treated "husbands and wives," said Markowski, who is legally married to her partner of 18 years.

"It was like a kick in the stomach," said Markowski, who just moved to the city from the Northwest Territories. "It was definitely a traumatic and unexpected experience ... She is a doctor who is paid with public funds.

"I have a really hard time understanding how her religion affects her ability to care for me as a human being."

It gets worse...:

Dr. Kamelia Elias did not return phone calls seeking comment. But she told the Winnipeg Free Press that she has no experience treating gays and lesbians who have "sexual problems" and "a lot of diseases and infections."

Oh good grief. The classic line dredged up from the bottom of the swamps about GLBT people every time someone religious is looking for an excuse to justify their desire to be prejudicial and discriminatory.

Then we get the following bit of apologia from the clinic's medical director:

Gwozdecki said Elias interviewed the couple, took their medical history and had already initiated the doctor-patient relationship when one of the women asked Elias if she had a problem with their same-sex relationship.

Gwozdecki said Elias was upfront with her religious beliefs — which are opposed to homosexuality — and dis­closed she has not had exposure to les­bian patients.

Now, how comfortable or trusting of a doctor who has said "my religious beliefs declare you sinful" do you think those patients can possibly be? There's a clear message when the doctor says something like that - it's 'get lost'.

Yes, I accept that a doctor has some right to filter their patient list to those that they feel they can work with. But, when the grounds for refusing a patient are purely based upon a 'religious objection', but just as I cannot refuse someone service because of their religion, it cuts the other way - they cannot refuse me service because of their religion, or my own for that matter. Faith is a matter of personal freedom - to project it upon others is simply wrong.

In some ways, this is the absolute worst case scenario that could suddenly be "protected" under the auspices of so called "freedom of conscience" rules for medical practitioners. Finding a doctor is difficult enough these days, it is doubly so for GLBT folk precisely because of these kinds of behaviours.

There Are Reasons I Don't Hire An Economist To Do My Accounting

So ... today's Budget Day, and Big Daddy's crew delivered the fantasy trip spending budget that had been hinted at. (I haven't had the time to look very closely at the spending portion of things yet - I'll start to take that apart later, after I've had a few hours to read it and think about it all)

But, it amazes me the logic that the Conservatives are using here. While a federal government budget is two parts prognostication, and one part actual accounting, we have to step back for a moment and wonder a little at the following:

The budget also vows to freeze EI premiums charged to employees and employees for 2009 and 2010, a measure that will cost Ottawa $4.5-billion over the next two years because the rise in claims will create a deficit it must cover.

So ... the government is expecting, and in fact planning on, an increase in expenditures; but it is going to freeze the incoming money stream? Actually, it's more twisted than that - they're going to freeze an income stream that is going to shrink. A ten percent increase in EI claimants isn't just a ten percent increase in the demands on the EI system, it also represents a reduction in the income the government has to work with in the first place.

I find this particularly ironic, since Conservative governments usually claim to be such great fiscal stewards and then they promptly overspend while shackling the government's ability to raise funds. (Remember, the HarperCon$ have been busily spending money like drunken sailors since 2006 - as long as it's for the military, they seem to have no restraint in their spending)

Good Message To Send ...

So, I see that the Pope has decided to rescind the excommunication of four bishops.

The bishops are members of the St. Pius X Society, which was founded in 1970 by a French archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre, in opposition to Vatican II reforms. They were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988 after Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated them in unsanctioned ceremonies.

One of these four is a holocaust denier:

Bishop Richard Williamson recently told Swedish TV: "I believe there were no gas chambers. I think that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers."

Brilliant tactics, there Pope. What's the message you're sending out to the world? If you are GLBT or a feminist, it's a really, really awful thing for the world. But someone who denies the mass slaughter of six million of the world's population in WWII? Not such a bad dude, apparently. But, this is the same loon who thinks that 9/11 is part of some larger conspiracy, and that women shouldn't be educated - so I don't think we're talking about the most broad minded of humanity somehow.

It's not like the world as a whole knows, or really cares, about some doctrinal squabbling within the Catholic faith. What they will see - I guarantee it - will be a hardline, conservative Pope cuddling up with what amounts to a neo-nazi in a cassock.

Good thinking! Just the image the Church needs to project right now.

Just How Is This "God's Plan"?

I've known for a long time that religious conservatives despise feminism. This is not surprising really, for feminism's very existence calls into question many of the fundamental assumptions about social lives and structures that are embedded in the scripture. So, if you are inclined to assume that scripture should be handled literally, feminism in all its forms is deeply unsettling.

In many respects, it comes as no big surprise to me that evangelical christianity has invented its own anti-feminist movement.

To the age-old question of “who is God,” Kassian complained, feminism answers, it’s up to you. And this, to Kassian, is a blasphemous statement of authority in and of itself, and even a sign of self-worship. “According to feminism, women decide, and ultimately, that means that they themselves are God.”

Actually not really. Feminism doesn't generally have anything to say about the concept of "God". However, what it does do is call upon women to think and act for themselves.

It gets better:

“Wimpy theology does not give a woman a God big enough, strong enough, wise enough, good enough to handle the realities of life in a way that enables her to magnify Him and His Son all the time… Wimpy theology doesn’t have a granite foundation of God’s sovereignty underneath.” Non-wimpy theology gives women both a God strong enough to see them through the worst of life, Piper continued, and also a set of non-negotiable mandates for life. Namely that submission is a wife’s divine calling, and truest form of power. “I distinguish between authority and influence,” he said. “A woman on her knees sways more in this nation than a thousand three-piece suited Wall Street jerks. There is massive power in this room, so I do not take lightly this moment.”

Now, personally, I don't buy the biblical 'man as head of the family' routine - I never have. Real families are active partnerships between the spouses, not situations where one partner places themselves in submission to the whims of the other.

Then, someone sat down and started pointing out the dark side of this woman-as-submissive mentality:

In June 2007, professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Bruce Ware told a Texas church that women often bring abuse on themselves by refusing to submit. And Debi Pearl, half of a husband-and-wife fundamentalist child-training ministry as well as author of the bestselling submission manual, Created to Be His Help Meet, writes that submission is so essential to God’s plan that it must be followed even to the point of allowing abuse. “When God puts you in subjection to a man whom he knows is going to cause you to suffer,” she writes, “it is with the understanding that you are obeying God by enduring the wrongful suffering.”

When these clowns are telling women that the spouse who is beating them every couple of weeks is doing "God's will" and that women are meant to suffer at the hands of an abusive spouse, they are doing something far worse than the abuse itself - they are fostering the very grounds that abuse will flourish in.

Saddleback’s position is “typical evangelical fare on the subject of domestic abuse and domestic violence,” responds Andersen. Typical because, like other well-known and extremely influential evangelical leaders, Saddleback is pushing a message of “leave while the heat is on,” but only with the intention of returning to the marriage when the violence has cooled. This is the message that Andersen tracks from Christian leaders as prominent as megachurch pastor John MacArthur, Focus on the Family head James Dobson, and established Christian radio psychologists Minirth and Meier on the far-reaching Moody Media empire. “Everyone with a lick of sense knows that, in a violent marriage, the heat is never really off,” Andersen tells me. “Everything can be fine one minute, and the next minute you’re dead.”

I don't care what scripture says about wifely submission, or for that matter the man's right to beat his spouse. Abuse is abuse - and it is wrong. Period. If scripture says it's "okay", then the scripture is simply demonstrating that it is an artifact of an era long past, and it is time to move beyond interpreting it literally.