Rebecca Juro article

There’s an article by Rebecca Juro up on www.gaycitynews.com, and it made me think of a quote by Eugene Debs:
“While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
Eugene Debs was a socialist, and ran for President on the Socialist Party ticket five times (once from jail, where he was for protesting the draft).
My feeling personally is that it is too early to expect anyone – much less the stodgy Democratic Party – to include transgender equality. That’s not a reason not to push for it, by any means, and I applaud Juro’s efforts. I will keep working personally on education, which I hope clears some of the pathways to power, over time.
But I’m still picking stodgy over hateful (which is what I find the Republicans to be on GLBT issues), so this year I’m voting Kerry/Edwards.
Continue reading “Rebecca Juro article”

FMA Defeated

From The Washington Post:
Senate Scuttles Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage
By David Espo
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 14, 2004; 12:56 PM
The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.
The vote was 48-50, 12 short of the 60 needed to keep the measure alive.
“I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance,” said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. “Isn’t that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?”
But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no “urgent need” to amend the Constitution. “Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It’s what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It’s what I believe.”
“In South Dakota, we’ve never had a single same sex marriage and we won’t have any,” he said. “It’s prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in 38 other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity.”
Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.
“I don’t think it’s going away after this vote,” Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. “I think the issue will remain alive,” he added.
Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.
“The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage,” Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. “They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here,” adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.
“Thune’s ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle’s campaign.
At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States “shall consist only of a man and a woman.”
A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution “shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.” Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.
Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the “most enduring human institution.”
Bush’s fall rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.
The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.
At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in 10 support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.
Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq and the economy.
“The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It’s a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.
But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.
“Same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended,” he added.
He said the choice was “activist judges” on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.
� 2004 The Associated Press

Sign the Petition

Please sign on to our emergency petition to Congress to stop this divisive amendment at:
http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/
Then please ask your friends and family to sign, by forwarding them this email. We’ll deliver our comments tomorrow, before the vote, so we need as many people as possible to sign on today.
President Bush campaigned on a promise to unite us, not divide us. Yet today, as people are questioning Bush’s handling of everything from the war in Iraq to the economy, Bush and his friends are trying to distract voters from the real issues by turning to the politics of division and hate.
If America stands for anything, it stands for equal rights and opportunities for everyone. Throughout our history, we’ve struggled to guarantee that equality: ending slavery; securing voting rights for women; and passing the Civil Rights Act just 40 years ago.
Equality in marriage is the civil rights issue of our generation. We can’t let anyone, or any group, be singled out for discrimination based on who they are or who they love.
When two people make a deep personal commitment, taking responsibility for each other and doing all the work of marriage, they should be able to share in the legal benefits of marriage as well. These benefits include access to health care and medical decision-making for one’s partner and children, parenting and immigration rights, inheritance, taxation, and Social Security benefits.
This isn’t a partisan issue, notwithstanding Bush’s pandering to his right-wing base. Former President Gerald Ford, a Republican, said this about same-sex couples and marriage: “I think they ought to be treated equally. Period.”
[1] Also, many major corporations, including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Disney, Coors, and IBM, offer health insurance and other benefits to their employees’ same-sex partners. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) says the amendment is “Nuts… To be seen as the party that’s coming between two people that love each other doing what they want to do… to me that’s going to be seen as a liability, politically.” [2]
Yet President Bush is bent on moving America backward, by enshrining discrimination in the United States Constitution.
Don’t let him divide us like this. Go to:
http://www.moveon.org/unitednotdivided/
Please help make sure your friends have signed on too, before we deliver this
petition tomorrow.
Thank you.

Transmale Nation

(I thought perhaps many of us on the MTF side of things don’t know much about the FTM side of things, & I thought this article did a decent job of it.)
25th Annual Queer Issue
By Elizabeth Cline

Transmale Nation: Remaking manhood in the genderqueer generation

June 22nd, 2004 10:00 AM
A digital call to action spread on friendster.com last month, and a crowd of tranny boys descended on the East Village gay dive the Boiler Room. It was the very first Manhunt, a party for transmen and their admirers.
When several dozen genderqueers crashed the place, a few of the bar’s gay patrons threw a tantrum. They tried desperately to sort out who was a dyke and who was a dude by rating the tranny boys – with their flat chests, short hair, and male posturing – according to who still “looked like girls.” But eventually, these hecklers were outnumbered by some of New York’s au courant
gender outlaws, a mix of young masculine-identified dykes, bois, and trans guys clamoring for a space of their own. By the end of the night, the trans folks and the gay guys had made peace, and Riley MacLeod, a 22-year-old, gay-identified tranny boy, even stole a kiss from the bartender.
Just a few years ago, the transmale community was still underground, connecting with each other in group therapy and chat rooms. How things have changed. Some of the city’s hottest queer parties are fundraisers for chest-reconstruction surgery, tagged with names like “Take My Breasts Away.” Ethan Carter’s Trans*Am party has gotten so popular it has outgrown its digs
at the lesbian watering hole Meow Mix, and Manhunt plans to carry on through the summer.
By now, there are hundreds of personal Web pages, chat groups, and surgery-comparison sites by and for transmen. (Check out , ,
, or the more than 200 Yahoo groups that pop up under a search for FTM, meaning female-to-male transgender.) Brown University, Sarah Lawrence, and Wesleyan have gender-neutral dorms, bathrooms, and sports teams. New York’s LGBT Community Center has expanded its Gender Identity Project to include eight groups for the gender questioning.
Five years ago, if you were a transmale, you were FTM (or female-to-male) and you would probably change your name, go on testosterone, move to a new city, and perhaps consider sex reassignment surgery. Most of those FTMs wanted the world to know them and see them as real men. But there’s a new trans generation. They’re college-educated, raised on gender deconstruction, and not so interested in realness.
Today, most transmales don’t plan to have “bottom surgery,” which constructs male genitalia out of the labia and clitoris. For some, it’s a matter of cost (ranging from $10,000 to $100,000, which still doesn’t buy you a fully functioning, realistic penis). But a lot of trans guys say they’re doing just fine without one.
“I do not want a cock,” says K.J. Pallegedara, an 18-year-old tranny boy who hides his breasts by binding them with Ace bandages. “I know a couple of transmen who see their masculinity in their dick. But my masculinity is in my head.” K.J. does plan to take testosterone, and he’s saving up the outrageous $8,000 for “top surgery,” which removes the breasts and constructs a male-appearing chest. Dr. James Reardon, one of the nation’s best-known chest reconstruction surgeons, says he performs at least one such procedure a week – up from one a year in 1974, when Reardon saw his first patient.

Photo of: Rowan Foley, Stephen Alexander, Evan Schwartz, Tom Leger, Riley MacLeod, Patric Peter, Ian Lundy, K.J. Pallegedara, Eli Greene, and Ethan Mase
lla
As visibility grows, more transmales are changing their pronouns and hormones to fit their masculine gender identity, and many are starting the transition at a very early age. (A recent Oprah episode featured transmale guests as young as 11.) Along with this emergence has come an extensive lexicon. In addition to FTMs, there are female-bodied masculine-identified people who don’t consider themselves men. They include tranny boys (who feel and look, well, boyish), transfags (who act effeminate), bois (dykes who “play” with masculinity), genderqueers (an umbrella term for folks who challenge their gender) and the list is still growing.
In this brave new world, you can be a transmale who goes “no-ho” (meaning no hormones) or “low-ho,” and “no-op” (no surgery) – or you can be a genderqueer who has top surgery, identifies as a woman, and goes by the pronoun he. The possibilities are endless.
America has always been the land of self-invention, but lately that concept has been applied to the body in unprecedented ways. Thanks to technology, transmales can now invent the body they feel comfortable with. In the new thinking, gender and orientation are a highly personal creation, and while some transmales still strive for “realness,” the new generation is heading far beyond the appurtenances of masculinity. This isn’t about having a beard or chest hair. These guys look boyish, yet butch.
But in the end, the transmale identity can’t be described within the binaries of man/boy, butch/femme, or gay/straight. Says transman and performance artist Imani Henry, “It’s all about self-identity.”
As Manhunt and Trans*Am (meaning amorous) imply, transmales are on the prowl for folks who are willing to break the mold of gender and sexual orientation – or at least go out with someone who does. Along with this evolution has come a new breed of queer women who like dating trannies and who gag on the word lesbian. “I don’t give a shit if people read me as lesbian or straight,” says Alana Chazan, 24, a femme queer woman who has dated both dykes and transmen. “For me, it’s about respecting my partner’s gender identity.”
It remains to be seen whether gay men can respect a tranny boy in the morning. But there are same-sex couples who weren’t born that way. Some transmales call themselves transfags because they express femininity in a very gay-male way. And some of them are open to dating women. “I don’t define fagginess by who I fuck, because I’ve dated all over the place,” says Bran Fenner, 22. “I define it by how I demonstrate femininity.”
Bran has a crew of transfags of color that he met through a Yahoo group he started with a friend. Most of its members, like Bran, would call themselves pansexual. Riley, on the other hand, wants to date biological men (called bioguys), a hopeless prospect, he says, because of “male ignorance” about transmen. But those walls are coming down. The Center has started a new group for LGB trans people, and there’s now trannyfag porn featuring trans and bioguys, surprise, getting it on.
Whatever their sexual orientation, most transmales remain in queer women’s spaces because they feel safe there. Acceptance is growing in this community, but there still are dykes who gripe that all butch women are turning into boys, and feminists who label transmen misogynists out to gain male privilege. It’s true that some transmen ridicule women, but no more than “real” men do – and there are feminists and lesbians who ridicule femininity. So what’s the difference?
We live in a time when the attributes of manhood reign supreme, and not just for men. Women are appropriating the power and aesthetic of masculinity to redefine themselves, to the point where even our heroines – Uma Thurman comes to mind- kick ass harder than your average dude. Masculinity is no longer an exclusively male endowment, but it’s still a very desirable one. This explains why the stakes are higher for transwomen (MTFs) in the world at large than they are for transmen. It also explains why the new generation of genderqueers accords more status to the male-identified. And perhaps why there are so many queer women, as opposed to queer men, ridding themselves of their female identity.
Yes, the status of transmen is enjoying a boost thanks to our macho obsession. But the way this scene understands itself and the world challenges that hierarchy. Feminism and gay liberation made it OK to feel comfortable with yourself as the world labeled you. But the genderqueer
generation proposes a new reality in which the world doesn’t label our identities and our bodies; we do. If you spot these transmales at the Pride parade, or in your local bar, you have seen the future – and it’s very queer indeed.

Gwen Araujo trial declared mistrial

from the San Jose Mercury News:
Posted on Tue, Jun. 22, 2004
Judge declares mistrial in Araujo case
JURORS SAID THEY WERE HOPELESSLY DEADLOCKED
By Yomi S. Wronge
Mercury News
An Alameda County judge this morning declared a mistrial in the Gwen Araujo case after jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked on whether three men killed the transgender Newark teenager.
Superior Court Judge Harry Sheppard announced the decision in a Hayward courtroom shortly before 10 a.m. after hearing from the 8-man, 4-woman panel, and individually asking them if further deliberations would help them reach verdicts. Only two said that was a possibility, the others said it would do no good.
The had been deliberating the fate of Jose Merel, Jason Cazares and Michael Magidson, all 24, since June 3.
The three were facing first degree murder charges, with a hate crime enhancement, for allegedly killing Gwen.
Gwen, who was 17, was born Eddie Araujo Jr., but identified and lived as a girl. According to trial testimony, Gwen was beaten and strangled after her biological identity was revealed during a confrontation in the early hours of Oct. 4, 2002, at Merel’s house in Newark.
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/174/nation/California_jurors_unable_to_re:.shtml
California jurors unable to reach verdict in slaying of transgender teen
By Michelle Locke, Associated Press, 6/22/2004 14:32
HAYWARD, Calif. (AP) A judge declared a mistrial Tuesday in the case of three men accused of killing a transgender teen after jurors declared they were deadlocked.
The case has been closely watched by transgender advocates, who said the verdicts would send a message about how much their lives are valued. Michael Magidson, Jose Merel and Jason Cazares, all 24, were charged with killing a 17-year-old who was known as Gwen but was born Edward Araujo.
According to trial testimony, Araujo was beaten and strangled after her biological identity was revealed during a confrontation on Oct. 4, 2002, at Merel’s house in Newark, a San Francisco suburb. Merel and Magidson had had sexual encounters with Araujo and had become suspicious about Araujo’s gender after comparing notes, according to testimony. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Harry Sheppard declared the mistrial after the jury foreman announced that the eight men and four women were deadlocked after nine days of deliberations. If they had decided to convict, the jury would have had the option of returning verdicts of first-degree murder, punishable by 25 years to life in prison; second-degree murder, 15-to-life; or manslaughter, which carries a maximum term of 11 years.
The case was charged as a hate crime, which could add four years to sentences. Cazares had sought acquittal, saying he wasn’t involved in the killing and only helped bury the body. Magidson’s attorney argued the case was not murder but manslaughter, a crime of passion triggered by sexual fraud.
Continue reading “Gwen Araujo trial declared mistrial”

SF Chronicle article on Gwen Araujo & deception

No issue of sexual deception
Gwen Araujo was just who she was
Dylan Vade
Sunday, May 30, 2004
link”
Don’t talk to me about deception.
Gwen Araujo, a beautiful young transgender woman, was brutally beaten to death the fall of 2002. In the trial of three men accused of murder in her slaying, defense attorneys Tony Serra and Michael Thorman are using the “transgender/gay panic” defense. Their argument essentially is that Gwen deserved to be killed because she deceived, and thus stole the heterosexuality of the men she had sex with.
No one deserves to be killed for deception.
But in Gwen’s case, there was no deception. Gwen was just being herself. In a world in which we are all told we have to be more feminine or more masculine — Gwen was wise enough to know herself and brave enough to be herself. That is beautiful. She should be our role model.
Instead, transgender people are seen as deceivers. The word “deception” comes up often in our lives.
I will share one of my experiences with deception. I am a female-to-male transgender person. One day, I flirted with someone I assumed to be a gay man, got his number and later went over to his place. He opened the door, and we kissed. A couple of minutes later, I came out to him as transgender. I did it casually. I do not make a big deal out of it, because to me it is not a big deal.
It was a big deal to him. He immediately stopped being interested and told me that I had deceived him. He said: “I thought you were just a cute gay guy.” He said that I should have told him that I am transgender and what my genitalia look like before he invited me to his place.
I was not hurt, aside from my feelings. I was lucky.
What I did not say to him then, but wished I had:
“You deceived me. All this time I thought you were just a cute transgender guy. You really should have told me you are a nontransgender person. I cannot believe that you did not tell what your genitalia look like. I cannot go through with this. I would have never come over to your place had I known.
“Yes, you are right. I did not wear a T-shirt with a picture of my genitalia emblazoned on it. But, honey, neither did you. If we, as humans, decide that proper dating etiquette requires us all to disclose the exact shape and size of our genitalia before we get someone’s number, then, sure, maybe I will go along with that.
“You deceived me. You should have told me that you are transphobic. You should have told me that your head is chock full of stereotypes of what it means to be a ‘real man’ and a ‘real woman.’ You should have told me that when you look at someone, you immediately make an assumption about the size and shape of that person’s genitalia, and that you get really upset if your assumption is off.”
Why do some folks feel that transgender people need to disclose their history and their genitalia, and nontransgender people do not? When you first meet someone and they are clothed, you never know exactly what that person looks like. And when you first meet someone, you never know that person’s full history.
Why do only some people have to describe themselves in detail — and others do not? Why are some nondisclosures seen as actions and others utterly invisible? Actions. Gwen Araujo was being herself, openly and honestly. No, she did not wear a sign on her forehead that said “I am transgender, this is what my genitalia look like.” But her killers didn’t wear a sign on their foreheads saying, “We might look like nice high school boys, but really, we are transphobic and are planning to kill you.” That would have been a helpful disclosure.
Transgender people do not deceive. We are who we are.
Dylan Vade, co-director of the Transgender Law Center, is a lawyer and holds a Ph.D. in philosophy. Sondra Solovay, director of Beyond Bias, contributed to the article.
Continue reading “SF Chronicle article on Gwen Araujo & deception”

Good Article on Intersex

Gender blending
by By Will Evans — Sacramento Bee on 28 April 2004
David Cameron feels neither completely male nor female. Born with male genitalia, Cameron began growing breasts during puberty and didn’t sprout chest hair until testosterone treatment kicked in. Instead of the typical male XY chromosomes or the female XX set, Cameron has XXY.
“I feel sort of like a blend,” says Cameron, 56, of San Francisco.
Some researchers say that’s a reasonable conclusion. Humans don’t always clearly divide into male and female categories. Some are born with abnormalities that challenge the very definition of sex. The term for them is intersex. Julia, a schoolteacher from a small town in central California, didn’t want to be identified to protect her daughter. Now 4, the girl has a condition that caused an enlarged clitoris.
Doctors couldn’t tell Julia her baby’s sex until after several days of testing. They first came to her with a box of tissues, announcing, “We have a problem.”
Julia felt hot from head to toe from the shock. She remembers the hospital bracelet that said only “baby” instead of “boy” or “girl.” She cried at the thought of her child’s future challenges. “Oh, what a hard life,” she told her husband.
The concept of intersex that links Cameron and the little girl is too blurry to yield a definition with which everyone agrees. Many people with XXY chromosomes, for example, consider themselves absolutely male and distance themselves from the intersex world.
But prominent academics and activists define intersex as anyone whose sex chromosomes, external genitalia or internal reproductive system is not considered standard for male or female.
Peter Trinkl, a computer specialist in Berkeley, doesn’t really know how he looked at birth. All he has to work with are his genital scars, evidence of surgery. His parents didn’t tell him much. In school, he was beaten up and called an alien.
Trinkl, 51, considers himself a heterosexual male, but dating brings up difficult issues, and he hasn’t tried for 20 years.
“If I’m a man or a woman, I don’t want to get too much into that,” he says.
Only recently did Trinkl summon the courage, he says, to research the intersex community and hunt for his medical records.
Some infants are born with ambiguous genitalia while others clearly look male or female and may not find out they are different until they reach puberty. Still others bear a visible difference in anatomy – an enlarged clitoris or a tiny penis – but otherwise can be determined male or female. And some have the standard chromosomes of one sex and the external appearance of the other.
Intersex activists decry the shame and secrecy caging their condition. They urge doctors to avoid cosmetic genital surgery on intersex infants until the children themselves can decide if they want it. Cameron is helping to organize a public hearing on intersex issues to be held by San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission next month.
Children frequently are born with wide-ranging genetic and physical abnormalities. Intersex conditions just happen to manifest in an area that gets at the very definition of who we are.
What defines a person’s sex – their chromosomes, their appearance or their psyche? What if they don’t match?
How can you assign a sex to a child when you don’t really know? How can you not?
What if you surgically reconstruct a baby to look like one sex and the child grows up to identify as the other? What does gay or straight mean, then?
And when everything from color-coded baby presents on out is sexually segregated, is it possible to grow up as an alternative to male or female?
The mind-boggling, gender-bending conundrum plays out in people’s lives.
Intersex people might make up as much as 2 percent of live births, with between 0.1 percent and 0.2 percent of all infants receiving genital surgery, according to a scientific journal article co-written by Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology and gender studies at Brown University.
“If you look at this from the bigger philosophical view of, ‘Are there really only two kinds of people in the world – either men or women?’ – then the answer to that clearly is no,” she says.
Human sexuality, instead, can be seen as a spectrum or continuum, she says.
The medical profession has traditionally viewed an intersex birth as a “social emergency,” pushing to assign a child’s sex immediately and perform corrective surgery as soon as possible, says Celia Kaye, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Doctors want to avoid traumatizing parents and help the child grow up normally, without confusion or ridicule, she says.
Kaye helped create the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on intersex newborns along these lines in 2000. But the academy might revise its guidelines because of a growing number in the field who question whether surgery and sex assignment should take place so early in life.
A baby with an enlarged clitoris or minuscule penis, depending on one’s perspective, conventionally has been more likely to be determined a female because it’s surgically easier to make that happen, Kaye says. But it’s not clear, she says, whether that child will grow to be a happy, functioning woman. Some activists call it “genital mutilation.”
Sonoma County resident Cheryl Chase, 47, had surgery on her enlarged clitoris, leaving a “big, flat scar.” But she says the biggest harm doctors caused was “the idea that this was shameful,” telling her parents to keep it a secret.
In the early 1990s, Chase, who identifies herself as an intersex lesbian female, confronted doctors, called the press and founded the Intersex Society of North America, creating today’s intersex movement.
Because of pressure from advocates, doctors are now more open with patients and more likely to present parents with options rather than telling them what to do, says Amy Wisniewski, who does intersex research at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Hospital.
Julia, mother of the 4-year-old girl, says one of her daughter’s doctors “bullied” her into making a surgery appointment. Some surgery is necessary when the toddler hits puberty, but decreasing her clitoris is optional and cosmetic.
Because doctors can’t guarantee a post-surgery clitoris will retain the same sexual sensation, Julia worried her consent may deprive her daughter of a vital part of life. Julia cried every day until she finally canceled the surgery.
“We’re going to leave the decision up to her and talk to her and support her when she’s old enough to make that decision,” Julia says over the phone.
How old is that? If you can delay surgery, can you also put off assigning a sex?
The questions build quickly, but most people are stuck at the first one: “What is intersex?” The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center at the University of California, Davis, held a talk on exactly that as part of its first Intersex Awareness Week earlier this month.
It’s not clear, Wisniewski says, whether rates of homosexuality are higher among intersex people. But because it shares a battle against the closet, the gay community has embraced the intersex populace, with some organizations adding “I” to the alphabet soup of LGBT.
Still, some with sex chromosome variations keep as far away from both communities as possible.
Those with Klinefelter’s syndrome, or XXY, struggle in a world that glorifies a man’s-man masculinity and sexual prowess, mocking androgynous qualities in men as signs of homosexuality. They’re already marked by that extra “female” chromosome and, for some, breast development and smaller genitalia. The last thing many want is to be aligned with the gay community.
Melissa Aylstock of Loomis is clear: Her XXY son is unambiguously male, and most men with Klinefelter’s syndrome don’t consider themselves intersex. Her son’s doctor, Ronald Swerdloff, chief of endocrinology at Harbor UCLA Medical Center, doesn’t consider Klinefelter’s syndrome intersex, either, because it doesn’t produce ambiguous genitalia.
When her son was diagnosed at age 8, Aylstock was “scared to death.” She wrote to Ann Landers, asking that a post-office box address be published for other parents to get in contact. After the letter ran in 1989, Aylstock received 1,000 letters and hundreds of dollars to start an organization. She founded Klinefelter Syndrome and Associates in Roseville.
Testosterone treatment is the norm for Aylstock’s son, now 23. In the school gym, students asked about his patch. He told them it was for nicotine addiction. “Mind you, we’re Mormon,” says his mother. “That just cracks me up. So he handled it.”
The son declined to talk about his condition in the context of the intersex community.
“So many guys are trying to be just normal,” says Robert Grace of Sonora, who found out at 39 he has XXY chromosomes. When he told people, they thought, “Oh, you’re gay,” he says.
When Grace should have been going through puberty, he watched the other boys whistling at girls and thought, “What jerks.” But he wasn’t gay.
His diagnosis popped up during his premarital physical. “I looked at my (fianc�e) and I said, ‘You don’t have to marry me.’ ”
They did marry and have adopted four children, two of whom also have Klinefelter’s syndrome.
“As a general population, we really would like to be accepted,” says Grace, a “stay-at-home Mr. Mom.” “If I sat next to you, you would have no clue that I was XXY, so why do we need another label?”
Cameron, on the other hand, embraces the other label.
Cameron’s birth certificate and driver’s license declare that “he” is male. With a 6-foot-10 build, a balding head, a deep voice and a beard, Cameron could hardly pass for female yet feels more female than male.
When faced with those annoying little boxes designating “M” or “F” on forms and applications, Cameron might check both or write “intersex.” It somehow seems appropriate that Cameron sometimes goes by the nickname “Iris,” after a favorite flower, the bearded iris.
Cameron got the Klinefelter’s diagnosis at 29 and began testosterone therapy. Where before Cameron had a “really nice smooth body,” now everywhere is hair. “I hate it,” Cameron says. “Quite frankly, I would really like the body I had 27 years ago back.”
Cameron has been with the same male partner for 26 years, though before that Cameron had a girlfriend. Earlier this month, the partner dropped to his knees and presented Cameron a diamond ring.
Cameron wants to wed but first is inquiring with civil rights lawyers because of the radical questions the act could provoke.
After all, would it be a standard marriage, a same-sex marriage or something else entirely?
——————————————————————————–
Misused terms add confusion
The term “intersex,” according to advocates and academics, means anyone with sex chromosomes, external genitalia or an internal reproductive system not considered standard for male or female. Here’s what intersex is not.
Hermaphrodite: The medical definition of a true hermaphrodite is someone with both ovarian and testicular tissue. This is rare and only one of various intersex conditions. Many intersex people consider this term offensive.
Homosexual: Some intersex people are gay, some are not. One doesn’t imply the other.
Transgender: This refers to people who are born one sex but identify as the other. Some choose a sex-change operation.
Eunuch: This refers to a castrated male.
——————————————————————————–
Genetic roots of intersex conditions
Intersex conditions vary in their genetic roots and physical manifestations. Here are details of a few conditions.
Androgen insensitivity syndrome: Patients have male chromosomes (XY) but don’t respond to androgens (male sex hormones, including testosterone). They have undescended testes, normal female external genitalia and breast development. Those with partial androgen insensitivity syndrome have ambiguous genitalia.
Gonadal dysgenesis: Patients have XY chromosomes, but their gonads don’t produce androgens. They have female external genitalia. Those with partial gonadal dysgenesis have ambiguous genitalia.
5-alpha-reductase deficiency: Patients have XY chromosomes but can’t produce the sex hormone dihydrotestosterone. They have testes, a penis resembling a clitoris and a scrotum resembling outer labia. They undergo some masculinizing changes during puberty.
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia: Patients have female chromosomes (XX) but produce excess androgens. They have ovaries, an enlarged clitoris and fused labia resembling a scrotum.
Klinefelter’s syndrome: Patients have the sex chromosome variation XXY and are sterile. They have male genitalia, sometimes with smaller sex organs, and sometimes develop breasts at puberty.
Turner syndrome: Patients have the chromosome variation of only one X. They have normal female external genitalia but can have other physical abnormalities. Because they don’t have functioning ovaries, puberty doesn’t cause breast development or menstruation.
Source: The Johns Hopkins Children’s Center
——————————————————————————–
Resources
* Bodies Like Ours support group with online forums: www.bodieslikeours.org, (610) 258-7466.
* Intersex Society of North America: www.isna.org.
* Klinefelter Syndrome and Associates: www.genetic.org, (888) 999-9428.
* The Johns Hopkins Children’s Center guide for patients and parents: www.hopkinsmedicine.org/pediatricendocrinology/intersex.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/lifestyle/story/8971622p-9897782c.html

TransNews

Four articles:
1) An article about an 11-year old English girl who lectured at a conference in Geneva about her non-traditional family,” including her father, an ftm transsexual:
Manchester Online
2) An article entitled “Gender blending: Facing difficult decisions, intersex people and theirfamilies push for understanding”:
Sacramento Bee
3) An article about that renegade school board in California, which unfortunately seems to have gotten away with their refusal to adopt the anti-discrimination policy that would protect tg students, by relying on some sort of technicality:
School’s No-Bias Wording Gets OK State’s acceptance of Westminster board’s
antidiscrimination rule defuses funding crisis.
By Joel Rubin, Times Staff Writer
California’s schools chief on Monday reluctantly accepted Westminster School District’s novel approach to an antidiscrimination law – a decision that grants a dramatic victory to three beleaguered trustees and removes, for now, the threat of lost funding.

The three, who form a majority on the Westminster board, have cited their Christian beliefs in insisting that the district not adopt word-for-word a statepolicy that allows students and staff members to define their own gender.
Westminster is the only one of California’s 1,056 school districts that has refused to adopt the language, and faced the loss of $8 million in annual state and federal funding. The stance, which angered many parents and teachers, led to a recall campaign and proposed legislation that would allow the state to take over the district.
California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell announced Monday that the modified policy the board adopted last week technically complies with state law that protects gays, as well as transsexuals and others who do not conform to traditional gender roles.
But in a stern letter to the district’s five trustees, O’Connell said he did not trust that the board’s majority intended to adhere to the law and promised to scrutinize the district for possible violations.
“I want to again express my disappointment that those who took an oath to educate children would abuse their elected positions and attempt to flout the law,” O’Connell wrote. “This sets a destructive example for our children and is contrary to the democratic values of our society. Our children deserve better.”
But trustee Judy Ahrens, who led the board’s resistance to the state law, said students were the winners.
“This is a victory for the kids. Anything else would have been dangerous for them,” Ahrens said. “I’ve been through so much, so much. Finally, something right has been done in Sacramento.”
For months, she and fellow trustees Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock rejected the wording of the state law that allows students and teachers to define their own gender when making a discrimination complaint. The three said the law was immoral and would allow transsexuals to promote alternative lifestyles in the classroom.
Last week, as a state deadline expired, the divided board voted to revise the district’s policy for handling discrimination complaints as O’Connell’s office had demanded. But in rewriting the policy, they rejected the idea that someone can define their own gender when making a complaint.
Instead, the trustees approved a policy that defines a person’s gender as their biological sex or, in the case of discrimination, what it was perceived to be by an alleged discriminator.
The three trustees’ stance has pitted them against other board members, teachers and parents who have accused them of jeopardizing district funding, while following personal beliefs instead of state law.
Louise MacIntyre, president for the district PTA, said O’Connell’s decision would not alter plans to recall Ahrens and Marquez-Woodcock. Rutkowski, whose term expires in November, is not targeted.
“I’m relieved that there will not be any financial impact, but these women have gotten by on a technicality,” she said. “For the past two months they have held our 10,000 kids hostage. Their agenda is obviously not in the best interest of the children.”
Similarly, state Sen. Joseph Dunn (D-Santa Ana) said he would continue to pursue a bill that would allow the state to take control of any school district that failed to comply with state law.
“In no way am I going to terminate my plans for legislation,” Dunn said. “If there is ever a future claim of discrimination, this board will never act in compliance with the law.”
In an interview Monday, O’Connell also was skeptical that the Westminster board majority would follow the law: “They are on my permanent watch list. I have many friends in the district and will keep an ear close to the ground.
“They are complying with the law; however, their prior rhetoric and action is unacceptable. I will never condone any discrimination against anyone.”
In his letter, O’Connell also ordered the district to inform its parents, employees and students of the changes to the gender policy. Trish Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the district, said administrators were discussing how best to notify the community.
Mark Bucher, the lawyer hastily hired by the board this month to represent the district, dismissed O’Connell’s promise to keep close watch on Westminster. Bucher said Monday’s decision not only vindicates the three trustees, but calls into question the state’s gender definitions.
“Mr. O’Connell’s decision proves that the three trustees were right from the beginning,” Bucher said. “He can dance around it all he wants – but our definition follows the letter of the law. He is inviting someone to challenge the state law, and I think someone will.”
But education officials and antidiscrimination activists contend the law is solid.
The only question, they said, is whether Westminster will follow it.
“The bottom line is that the test will come when we see how the district handles a real-life case,” said Jennifer Pizer, senior attorney for Lambda Legal, a national nonprofit legal advocacy group for gays, lesbians and transsexuals.
“What we’ve seen is a quibble about technical drafting – but their intention is clear. They plan to deny protection from discrimination to a class of students.”
Ahrens said the district would follow the law – though she declined to say how the district would respond to a complaint by a transsexual or anyone else who believed they were discriminated against because they do not fulfill traditional gender roles.
“We’re going to treat everyone decently,” Ahrens said. “People are allowed to do whatever they want on their own time, but on the job, if you fall out of line, then that’s a problem.”
4) Finally, an article on transsexual marriage:
Transsexuals a new test of marriage
THE GAY-MARRIAGE DEBATE MAY CAST DOUBT ON VALIDITY OF UNIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE WHO CHANGE GENDER
By Yomi S. Wronge

Depending on how you see things, Fran Bennett and Erika Taylor are a heterosexual or lesbian couple. Either way, under California law, they’re married.
That’s because the couple tied the knot before Bennett, once a popular Bay Area disc jockey known as “Weird Old Uncle Frank,” had what is commonly called a sex change.
Their marriage — and possibly thousands like it involving transsexual women and men across the Bay Area and country — is already testing the boundaries of marriage as the nation wrangles over the rights of same-sex couples to wed.

Many transsexual couples have until now fallen under the mainstream radar as they’ve continued to marry, or remain married despite having changed genders. And now they’re worried the contentious debate over same-sex marriage will cast an unwelcome spotlight on their largely quiet existence.
`If the Orwellian religious right has their way, they could pull the plug on all of us,” said Bennett, 50, a San Jose resident who made national headlines in 2002 when she announced her transition from male to female.
Threats from religious conservatives, as well as President Bush’s push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, make couples like Bennett and Taylor uneasy.
“I am concerned that if there’s a federal change defining marriage only between a man and woman, and I no longer qualify as a man, then could they try to dissolve my marriage?” said Fairfax resident Dani-Marie Kleist, 54, a transsexual woman who married as a man 12 years ago. Transsexuals — people who have an innate sense they were born the wrong sex — have a legal right in California to change their gender on various forms of identification. Those who elect to have sex-reassignment surgery can also apply for a new birth certificate that reflects their corrected sex. There are an estimated 35,000 to 60,000 transsexuals living in California.

Transsexuals have long been able to marry in California and many other states under a variety of circumstances, including marriages entered into before a person makes the transition to the opposite gender, and those that would be considered heterosexual after a person changes gender. “It’s a precious right that we already have,” said Shannon Minter, a transsexual man and legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of three organizations that filed a lawsuit in March for six same-sex couples arguing that denying them the right to marry violates California’s constitution. While Minter believes marriages like Bennett and Taylor’s can’t be undone, she said they underscore the arbitrariness of using gender as a basis to restrict marriage. If these marriages are called into question, some wonder whether the larger gay and lesbian community will fight equally as hard for the rights of transsexuals to marry.
`I’m scared this will divide the LGBT community as opposed to bring it together,” Taylor, 36, said of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The major groups advocating for same-sex marriages, meanwhile, say it’s all one battle.
“When we look at transgenders, we see that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has all kinds of unintended consequences,” said Jim De La Hunt, policy director for Marriage Equality California, a non-profit, grass-roots group advocating for the freedom of all people to marry. Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from their anatomical sex. The term includes cross-dressers, people whose sexual organs are ambiguous at birth and transsexuals. Some political analysts believe it benefits gay and lesbian groups to avoid talking about this little-known community in the context of same-sex marriage.

`Middle America is having a hard enough time with just plain old vanilla gay marriage,” said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Opponents striving to ban gay marriage are already quietly planning ways to head off transgender people before they reach the altar.

`Transgender marriage isn’t marriage. It’s an invention, a violation of a universal social principal law of a male and a female,” said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, leader of the Traditional Values Coalition. Sheldon calls transgender marriage “the next wave” in the battle to protect traditional marriage ideals.
hat sentiment doesn’t surprise Gwendolyn and Bonnie Smith of Antioch, a legally married lesbian couple who have lived in peaceful domesticity for more than a decade, but now fear backlash given the current political climate.
`I’m scared that, somehow, they’ll come up with a way to reverse 12 years of my life,” said Bonnie Smith, 35, who married Gwen Smith before Gwen made the transition from a man to a woman. She cited recent family court decisions regarding transgender marriages, including one involving attorney Mathew Staver, whose Liberty Counsel is representing the conservative Campaign for California Families in suits filed to outlaw gay unions. Staver is appealing a Florida court decision to grant child custody to a transsexual man in a divorce case. Similar divorce issues have been argued in U.S. courts only six times. Those in New Jersey and Florida have upheld the validity of such marriages; Kansas, Texas, New York and Ohio courts have declared them invalid, Staver said.
`I think the whole gay marriage debate, although it may not always be phrased this way, is a debate about gender,” he said.

This Week's Action – 4/26/04

Lobby Days: NTAC & GPAC
This week, two groups representing transgendered people are lobbying DC about our issues.
NTAC (National Transgender Advocacy Coalition) describes its mission as follows:
NTAC’s 2004 lobbying event will take place from April 28th through April 30th in Washington, DC. Wednesday the 28th will be used for training and final preparations. The day’s events will include a press conference at which families of hate crimes victims and surviors of hate crimes can tell their stories. Thursday and Friday, the 29th and 30th, will include visits to YOUR members of Congress to educate them and their staffs on the need for transgender-inclusive Employee Nondiscrimination and Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (Hate Crimes) legislation.
This year’s effort will also press Congress to drop the sudden fixation on denial of equal marriage rights in order to take action on the serious, longtime employment and hate violence issues that have yet face the transgender community.
GPAC (Gender Public Advocacy Coalition) explain their efforts:
Parents, activists, and youth from all over the country come to the nation’s capital for a 3-day conference to work together to end discrimination and violence caused by gender stereotypes.
The conference beings with the 9th annual Gender Lobby Day, when activists from across the country descend on Capitol Hill to educate their Congress Members. Last year 1500 activists convened over 3 days! Following lobby day, attendees will return to the hotel for two intense and exciting days of workshops, plenaries, and Kimberle Crenshaw’s keynote address.
PLEASE donate to one or both of these groups to support their efforts!
Donate to NTAC
Donate to GPAC

New Yorker article

MY AMENDMENT
by GEORGE SAUNDERS
Issue of 2004-03-08
Posted 2004-03-01
A s an obscure, middle-aged, heterosexual short-story writer, I am often asked, George, do you have any feelings about Same-Sex Marriage?
To which I answer, Actually, yes, I do.
Like any sane person, I am against Same-Sex Marriage, and in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban it.
To tell the truth, I feel that, in the interest of moral rigor, it is necessary for us to go a step further, which is why I would like to propose a supplementary constitutional amendment.
In the town where I live, I have frequently observed a phenomenon I have come to think of as Samish-Sex Marriage. Take, for example, K, a male friend of mine, of slight build, with a ponytail. K is married to S, a tall, stocky female with extremely short hair, almost a crewcut. Often, while watching K play with his own ponytail as S towers over him, I have wondered, Isn�t it odd that this somewhat effeminate man should be married to this somewhat masculine woman? Is K not, on some level, imperfectly expressing a slight latent desire to be married to a man? And is not S, on some level, imperfectly expressing a slight latent desire to be married to a woman?
Then I ask myself, Is this truly what God had in mind?
Take the case of L, a female friend with a deep, booming voice. I have often found myself looking askance at her husband, H. Though H is basically pretty masculine, having neither a ponytail nor a tight feminine derri�re like K, still I wonder: H, when you are having marital relations with L, and she calls out your name in that deep, booming, nearly male voice, and you continue having marital relations with her (i.e., you are not �turned off�), does this not imply that you, H, are, in fact, still �turned on�? And doesn�t this indicate that, on some level, you, H, have a slight latent desire to make love to a man?
Or consider the case of T, a male friend with an extremely small penis. (We attend the same gym.) He is married to O, an average-looking woman who knows how to fix cars. I wonder about O. How does she know so much about cars? Is she not, by tolerating this non-car-fixing, short-penised friend of mine, indicating that, on some level, she wouldn�t mind being married to a woman, and is therefore, perhaps, a tiny bit functionally gay?
And what about T? Doesn�t the fact that T can stand there in the shower room at our gym, confidently towelling off his tiny unit, while O is at home changing their sparkplugs with alacrity, indicate that it is only a short stroll down a slippery slope before he is completely happy being the �girl� in their relationship, from which it is only a small fey hop down the same slope before T is happily married to another man, perhaps my car mechanic, a handsome Portuguese fellow I shall refer to as J?
Because my feeling is, when God made man and woman He had something very specific in mind. It goes without saying that He did not want men marrying men, or women marrying women, but also what He did not want, in my view, was feminine men marrying masculine women.
Which is why I developed my Manly Scale of Absolute Gender.
Using my Scale, which assigns numerical values according to a set of masculine and feminine characteristics, it is now easy to determine how Manly a man is and how Fem a woman is, and therefore how close to a Samish-Sex Marriage a given marriage is.
Here�s how it works. Say we determine that a man is an 8 on the Manly Scale, with 10 being the most Manly of all and 0 basically a Neuter. And say we determine that his fianc�e is a -6 on the Manly Scale, with a -10 being the most Fem of all. Calculating the difference between the man�s rating and the woman�s rating�the Gender Differential�we see that this proposed union is not, in fact, a Samish-Sex Marriage, which I have defined as �any marriage for which the Gender Differential is less than or equal to 10 points.�
Friends whom I have identified as being in Samish-Sex Marriages often ask me, George, given that we have scored poorly, what exactly would you have us do about it?
Well, one solution I have proposed is divorce�divorce followed by remarriage to a more suitable partner. K, for example, could marry a voluptuous high-voiced N.F.L. cheerleader, who would more than offset his tight feminine derri�re, while his ex-wife, S, might choose to become involved with a lumberjack with very large arms, thereby neutralizing her thick calves and faint mustache.
Another, and of course preferable, solution would be to repair the existing marriage, converting it from a Samish-Sex Marriage to a healthy Normal Marriage, by having the feminine man become more masculine and/or the masculine woman become more feminine.
Often, when I propose this, my friends become surly. How dare I, they ask. What business is it of mine? Do I think it is easy to change in such a profound way?
To which I say, It is not easy to change, but it is possible.
I know, because I have done it.
When young, I had a tendency to speak too quickly, while gesturing too much with my hands. Also, my opinions were unfirm. I was constantly contradicting myself in that fast voice, while gesturing like a girl. Also, I cried often. Things seemed so sad. I had long blond hair, and liked it. My hair was layered and fell down across my shoulders, and, I admit it, I would sometimes slow down when passing a shopwindow to look at it, to look at my hair! I had a strange constant feeling of being happy to be alive. This feeling of infinite possibility sometimes caused me to laugh when alone, or even, on occasion, to literally skip down the street, before pausing in front of a shopwindow and giving my beautiful hair a cavalier toss.
To tell the truth, I do not think I would have scored very high on my Manly Scale, if the Scale had been invented at that time, by me. I suspect I would have scored so Fem on the test that I would have been prohibited from marrying my wife, P, the love of my life. And I think, somewhere in my heart, I knew that.
I knew I was too Fem.
So what did I do about it? Did I complain? Did I whine? Did I expect activist judges to step in on my behalf, manipulating the system to accommodate my peculiarity?
No, I did not.
What I did was I changed. I undertook what I like to think of as a classic American project of self-improvement. I made videos of myself talking, and studied these, and in time succeeded in training myself to speak more slowly, while almost never moving my hands. Now, if you ever meet me, you will observe that I always speak in an extremely slow and manly and almost painfully deliberate way, with my hands either driven deep into my pockets or held stock-still at the ends of my arms, which are bent slightly at the elbows, as if I were ready to respond to the slightest provocation by punching you in the face. As for my opinions, they are very firm. I rarely change them. When I feel like skipping, I absolutely do not skip. As for my long beautiful hair�well, I am lucky, in that I am rapidly going bald. Every month, when I recalculate my ranking on the Manly Scale, I find myself becoming more and more Manly, as my hair gets thinner and my girth increases, thickening my once lithe, almost girlish physique, thus insuring the continuing morality and legality of my marriage to P.
My point is simply this: If I was able to effect these tremendous positive changes in my life, to avoid finding myself in the moral/legal quagmire of a Samish-Sex Marriage, why can�t K, S, L, H, T, and O do the same?
I implore any of my readers who find themselves in a Samish-Sex Marriage: Change. If you are a feminine man, become more manly. If you are a masculine woman, become more feminine. If you are a woman and are thick-necked or lumbering, or have ever had the slightest feeling of attraction to a man who is somewhat pale and fey, deny these feelings and, in a spirit of self-correction, try to become more thin-necked and light-footed, while, if you find it helpful, watching videos of naked masculine men, to sort of retrain yourself in the proper mode of attraction. If you are a man and, upon seeing a thick-waisted, athletic young woman walking with a quasi-mannish gait through your local grocery, you imagine yourself in a passionate embrace with her, in your car, a car that is parked just outside, and which is suddenly, in your imagination, full of the smell of her fresh young breath�well, stop thinking that! Are you a man or not?
I, for one, am sick and tired of this creeping national tendency to let certain types of people take advantage of our national good nature by marrying individuals who are essentially of their own gender. If this trend continues, before long our towns and cities will be full of people like K, S, L, H, T, and O, people �asserting their rights� by dating, falling in love with, marrying, and spending the rest of their lives with whomever they please.
I, for one, am not about to stand by and let that happen.
Because then what will we have? A nation ruled by the anarchy of unconstrained desire. A nation of willful human hearts, each lurching this way and that and reaching out for whatever it spontaneously desires, trying desperately to find some comforting temporary shred of warmth in a mostly cold world, totally unconcerned about the external form in which that other, long-desired heart is embodied.
That is not the kind of world in which I wish to live.
I, for one, intend to become ever more firmly male, enjoying my golden years, while watching P become ever more female, each of us vigilant for any hint of ambiguity in the other.
And as our children grow, should they begin to show the slightest hint of some lingering residue of the opposite gender, P and I will lovingly pull them aside and list all the particulars by which we were able to identify their unintentional deficiency.
Then, together, we will devise a suitable correction.
And, in this way, the race will go on.