Life, Law, Gender

Outing

I received an e-mail last night from a woman complaining that I had outed her on my blog.  At first, I did not recognize her name and did not believe that I had ever mentioned her here.  But, after doing a search, and asking her to direct me to the post in question, I found where, indeed, her name appears.  It appears not in my writing, but rather, in the text of something that I found on the Internet and had quoted.  However, out of an abundance of caution and to be most fair to her, I have removed her name from the post (not that it couldn't still be found by any dutiful person, especially a lawyer or law student -- the majority of people who read this blog).  At a minimum, this will provide her with one less "hit" should someone choose to do a search on her name.

But, her e-mail to me was kind of mean and it accused me of "outing" her on purpose, suggesting that I see myself as some sort of "third sex", and have no right to impose that, nor its visibility upon her. Further, she said my actions were "in the poorest of taste" and that I might not have "feelings in regards to anyone else". 

I posted about outing last year.  In that post, I argued that we should not purposefully out someone, despite my strong belief that being closeted hurts both the person in the closet and society in general.  Each person should be free to make this choice for themselves.  The problem, of course, is that -- especially with transsexuals -- it is very difficult to not leave a trail for someone to discover, despite your wishes.  Consider Lynn Conway, for example.  She lived much of her life, over 30 years, in "stealth mode", before someone discovered her past and outed her.  Now, she is an active and respected woman who has done amazing work for trans people and her community. 

The woman that was named in the article I quoted has been in the closet in excess of 25 years and says she has adopted kids from whom she wishes to keep keep her past a secret.  But, she was fired for being transsexual and she took it to court.  Someone, doing research on transsexuals in case law found her case and incorporated it into an article.  She, arguably, outed herself with her decision to go to the public forum of the courts to seek redress from being fired.   I completely applaud her actions in fighting for her rights; I hope she sees that such action brings risk with it.

Nevertheless, I wish this woman the very best of luck in keeping her past and her identity a secret. And, more than that, I hope that if her secret ever comes out that her adopted children and any other significant people in her life will continue to value her as a person.  The risks in that situation are impossible for outsiders to judge.  If she discloses now, she may run the risk of rejection.  If she fails to disclose, but is discovered, she may also run the risk of rejection -- but perhaps on other grounds, such as a lack of faith in the love of her family.  I wish her well.

Happy Halloween!

Despite the excellence of the conference, I was so very glad to get home to my sweetie.  We had a wonderful balance of Saturday (got to watch Michigan kick some butt, went downtown to watch all the little kids (there must have been 500 or more!) do the trick-or-treat thing along Main St. and then put up some more Halloween decorations and  generally just spent some real quality time together.  On Sunday, we lazed around, then went to a friend's house where we met "the group" -- a group of 5 women that The Girl has been a part of for the past 15 years (and where she met her previous partner) -- and engaged in the annual tradition of pumpkin carving (I cheated and had a lesson in pumpkin carving on Saturday night -- my Girl is the acknowledged master carver; the bat is my first attempt -- the howling wolf is the one I did with the group; The Girl's is the cat on a windowsill).  Then, we came home to watch the Broncos kick butt, and hand out candy to the kids in our neighborhood (trick-or-treating in our neighborhood is always done  on a weekend, regardless of when Halloween actually falls).  It was a great, relaxing weekend.

Conference Report

Although the Law Conference had one more day to go, I headed home on Saturday (had to be at the airport at 5:30 in the morning).  I had a very successful and enjoyable trip.  After the first day of less-than-productive time wasters, things really took off on Friday.  The career fair was a bust for me.  I don't know what I was thinking.  It was not designed for middle-age law students who are NOT choosing a firm after law school.

On Friday, however, I thoroughly enjoyed everything I did.  The opening panel discussion was on "Marriage, Domestic Partnerships, Civil Unions and other family structures" and was conducted by four law professors. Most exciting for me, was the portion of the talk given by Professor Julie Greenberg (a professor at Thomas Jefferson Law School, she has written extensively on transgender legal issues and was even quoted by the appelate court in Gardiner). It was a packed house and it was excellent.  I may choose to post more about it later -- it really hit my interest area directly.  Indeed, as a consequence of that panel discussion, I am leaning very heavily to specializing in family law (focused, of course, on the LGBT community).

At the first break-out session, I attended a discussion entitled, "Transgender Civil Rights Bills: What difference do they make".  One of the panelists, Lisa Mottet, is in charge of the Transgender Civil Rights Project at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF).  She is one of the women I hope to get an offer from to intern with next summer.  I've known her for sometime and have a great deal of respect for her and her work.  The discussion was good, but not extraordinary. 

The next break-out session was "Transgender Law and Constitutional Doctrine".  This panel WAS extraordinary.  As with the earlier panel, one of the panelists - Chris Daley - is someone I hope to get an offer from for an internship next summer.  Chris was with the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR; the same place Shannon Minter works) when he left to work for the Transgender Law Center.  One of the exciting things for me in this panel was the thoroughness of my constitutional education in the area.  I understood, and often was ahead of the panelists in every constitutional area they discussed: Full Faith and Credit, Dormant Commerce Clause, Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection.  I had a good conlaw prof! :)

Do I really want to work?

Today begins the Lavender Law Conference in San Diego.  Today (Thursday) is the "Career Fair" and attendees are advised to wear "interview attire".  I opted (at the urging of my partner) to bring the skirted suit.  We'll see how it goes.

It is now, for the first time since I began law school, that I am really faced with the hard reality of having to work after graduation.  I've easily deflected the question of "what are you going to do with your law degree" in the past.  Today, I really have to begin to know.  I came to law school because I thought I could make a difference in the world.  But the truth, of course, is that I didn't need a law degree to do that. And, indeed, I'm starting to wonder if I have instead saddled myself with an impediment to that objective (not to mention the $120k of debt).  Plus, now that I am in a loving committed relationship I find that, although I still want to make a difference, I want to spend as much time with her as I can possibly arrange.  That makes me look longingly toward the business world again.  There, I'm pretty confident that I can make a significant amount of money in a relatively short period of time and then retire to spend with The Girl (and possibly with my kids and grandkids!).

But, then, I'm torn by the fact that the only law school classes that turn me on are classes that speak to civil rights and fundamental freedoms.  I'm taking two business related courses this semester and am bored to tears with both of them.

So, now I sit here in my room, dressed for the day, having updated my resume to add an "Advocacy" section that discusses my activism and participation in the LGBT community and I prepare to go meet with a bunch of LGBT lawyers and see if I can find some balance that feels right to me.

What, oh what, do I want to be when I grow up?

Grouchy bitch

That's me.   I feel like a grouchy bitch today (and yesterday and the day before...).  Now that my human rights class is over, I have only one class that I enjoy - Family Law. Jurisdiction is taught by a superior instructor and I'm getting it, despite myself, but I just hate bankruptcy and I can't seem to get myself motivated in my "Deal" seminar. 

I'm annoyed at every little thing right now.  I'm not ill, but I'm on the verge.  I have a tickle in my throat, some tightness in my chest and watery, burning eyes.  This annoys me.  I went to use the ladies room a few minutes ago (in one of those panicked, "I need to get there right now" rushes) only to find that the only open stall was one where a previous occupant had peed all over the seat.  That annoys me.  Why do women do that?  I mean I can understand (I guess) a desire to not sit on a toilet seat used by lots of other women, but if you must squat to pee why not raise the fricking seat?  Oh, I get it -- you don't want to touch it (and, of course, *you* are the most important person here).  So, your solution is to pee all over it and make it more of a problem for the next person.  That annoys me.

I am going to the Lavendar Law conference in San Diego tomorrow, as I said earlier.  Thursday's attire is to be "interview dress".  I have no nice pant suits to wear and I'm not in a skirt mood right now.  This annoys me.  My honey had to change her plans (she was going to come with me, but work interfered) and is now not coming with me.  This means I'll be away from her for 3 nights.  This annoys me.

I'm late for my next class.  Damn.

Bitch, bitch, bitch.

Happy Birthday, Shanna & Marcus

Today is my niece’s birthday.  I sent her a card but she won’t get it for another couple of days.  I’m a terrible aunt.

Happy Birthday to Shanna and to my nephew Marcus (last month).  These are my younger sister’s children and they are amazing kids.  I last saw them in May and I miss them.

Interested in changing genders

Then read this very excellent post, by a very open and intelligent trans-man (and friend).

Censoring Art or Protecting Workers?

During National Coming Out Week, I appeared on a panel, sponsored by the Stonewall Democrats (co-chair is my friend JayaBug) where we discussed the status of the case National Pride at Work v. Granholm (the question of State employers' ability to continue to provide domestic partner benefits after the passage of Prop 2) as well as the impact of Smith v. City of Salem (OH) on the University's non-discrimination policies.

After the panel discussion, a question and answer session followed.  During that session, someone asked me how I felt about a drawing depicting a person with both breasts and a penis being displayed openly in the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs (satellite office in Flint).  Was it a celebration of transgender bodies or was it an affront to decency?  I couldn't give an honest answer, of course, because I had not seen it.  But I opined that I thought it would be purely contextual and I could envision scenarios where I would not be offended and scenarios where I would be.

I've now seen a censored version -- and include it here.  If I can get my hands on an unedited version, I'll post it as well.  I can now say unequivocally that I think the drawing is beautiful, artistic and celebratory.  I'm sorry they were made to take it down. Inside Higher Ed has the story. The Michigan Times also ran a story, where I was able to snag the picture.

Flirting

I am qualified to respond to inquiries about why some men do certain things (to the extent that any of us is ever qualified to report as a representative of a group we belong (or used to belong) to).  However, nothing in my experience enables me to answer the question of why it seems that some men feel they have a right to flirt with you in the course of a routine business transaction.  Yet, it happens all the time.

Today, I called University Health Services to reschedule an audiology appointment I had (yes, my friends, I am finally going in to have my hearing checked!) that conflicted with my attendance next week at the Lavendar Law Conference.  The guy on the other end of the phone asked for my name and when I gave it he responded in a syrupy (is that a word?) voice: "Oh, Miss Denise!  The one and only!"  and then later when he tried to book the appointment at another time that conflicted I told him that I would be in San Diego and unable to make that one also.  So he retorted: "Well, now, I just don't know if I'll be able to reschedule this if you aren't planning on taking me with you to San Diego."  Trust me when I tell you that his tone wasn't conversational.  He wasn't making small talk to fill the time while he searched the schedule for an available time.

What gives men the freedom to talk to women this way?  When I was a man I never had women talk to me this way.  Now, maybe that goes to my relative attractiveness... Nope, we won't go there.

[UPDATE] Note that this isn't the same as being ogled where one can pat oneself on the back for meausuring up to a construction worker's standards.  In that case, I couldn't complain (just as I didn't complain about being told I had cute legs). ;)

Repeat after me ... I am NOT a Catholic

I was raised Catholic.  My father was Catholic; his family is Irish and he was raised Catholic and took us to church every Sunday and required that we attend cathecism every Saturday.  I rejected that religion for many reasons once I reached my teens.  But, I've always tried to avoid being judgmental about either the religion or the people who practice it. 

So it really irks me when they judge me.  I was emailed an article from the CatholicHerald.com about the morality of transsexual surgery and I probably should have just ignored it (by prejudging its content and deleting it, I could have avoided this irritation), but I didn't.  I read it.  And, I'm annoyed.

I think the thing that annoys me the most is that the author reaches his conclusion that transsexual surgery is morally wrong ("Obviously, such procedures involve a radical and grotesque mutilation of the body.") through what I believe to be mis-application even of the Church's own words.  For example, quoting Vatican II's "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World", he says:

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day.

OK.  Cool.  Now, I don't subscribe to that belief set, but let's take it as it is.  I've never said that I despise my bodily life.  On the contrary, I revel in it, I love my life and am happy as a clam that I was born and have this body.  Using this as foundation seems, therefore, flawed, at least to me.

Then, he goes on to define transsexualism and draws from materials that are 30 years old (Meyer, "Psychiatric Consideration in the Sexual Reassignment of Non-Intersex Individuals" in Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 1974 and Colin Markland, "Transsexual Surgery" in Obstetrics & Gynecology Annual, 1975)!  Excuse me?  Much, very much has been learned about transsexualism in the past 30 years. 

He then develops his own definition of man and woman, relying exclusively on the ability to reproduce.  This ignores the vast numbers of people who cannot reproduce for any number of reasons, or the thousands of non-transsexual people who "need to use synthetic hormones":

No transsexual surgery will ever be able to duplicate completely the anatomy or the functioning of the opposite sex. A male transsexual will never be able to ovulate or conceive; and a female transsexual will never be able to germinate sperm. Transsexuals will need to use synthetic hormones continuously to sustain their change, which in turn runs the risk of cancer.

Perhaps hearkening back to his outdated research, he then decides that transsexualism is grounded in psychiatry and not physiology:

Another moral consideration is whether the condition of transsexualism justifies surgery. No biological cause of transsexualism has been identified. Rather, the cause appears to stem from psychological development, and thereby transsexualism should be treated with psychotherapy. Interestingly, even after surgery, transsexuals need at least some psychotherapeutic support.

I know dozens of post-operative transsexuals, including myself, who do not need any psychotherapeutic support, but even if they did -- so what?  How does that implicate the "morality" of surgery?  Most (perhaps all?) of such need derives not from a need to adjust oneself to one's body so much as the need to adjust oneself to a society (or a subset thereof) that still regards them as immoral.

The author then concludes with an anecdote about a post-op MTF physician and closes with this:

When examining this moral issue, once must not simply focus on the gravity of the physical mutilation. Rather, one must also focus on the devastating impact this act has on loved ones — parents, spouses, children — as well as friends and the community at large. Couldn’t a child say in this story, "My father killed himself to be someone else?" Therein lies the tragedy of this heinous act.

It does not follow that the impact on loved ones is necessarily devastating.  It certainly can be -- but so are lots of other things (say, for example, an actual suicide when the parent is no longer able to maintain the facade). In fact, it may be that the impact is exactly the opposite and that such loved ones see a re-birth of a spirit that glorifies God and exalts the gifts he/she has given us to be able to recognize and correct certain physical ailments (I continue to use the example of a hair-lip or a cleft palate where the only "defect" is arguably psychological -- the desire of a person afflicted to have it "corrected" so that they better fit in society).

Religion is used to put me down -- often.  Forgive me if I occasionally stoop to their level.

[UPDATE] My youngest daughter, Amanda, reponds here.

Pottow in hospital

I received this email from my bankruptcy professor early this morning:

I have been admitted to the cardiac unit at University Hospital.

All my classes are suspended until further notice.

I apologize for the inconvenience and will send an update as soon as possible.

I doubt I will have access to email.

Very best regards,

John Pottow.

Please join me in sending very good vibes his way and wishes for a speedy recovery.

[Update] I got an email from him today (10/19); he's been released from the hospital and is "feeling better". Classes will resume on Monday 10/24.

Skirting the issue

I'm standing in line today in our little law school cafeteria and I hear my name being called from behind.  I turn and see the same guy, a friend, that last semester complimented me on my legs on a day that I wore a skirt (actually, I think it might have been the same skirt!).

Today, he said: "Denise, you're wearing a skirt?!  You don't seem like a skirt person."  Huh?  So I asked, "Who is a skirt person."  He, ahem, skirted the issue by saying that he didn't know, but regardless it was too chilly for a skirt today anyway (obviously, I didn't think so; it's bright and sunny and mid 60s).

Now, it is true that I rarely wear skirts or dresses, but I don't eschew them.  Sometimes, I really enjoy wearing them.  I like the femininity that we assign to skirts.  Still, it was odd today to be confronted with why I like to occassionally wear a skirt when I was just having my own internal debate about the roles of men and women in our society (an outgrowth of my Family Law class).  Well, whatever.  I am, occassionally, a skirt person.

Go Blue!

I think this post must be obligatory.  I watched a college football game yesterday.  Wow.  From a fairly routine, even boring start (score 3-0 at halftime) to 39 points being scored in the final quarter and the Michigan Wolverines winning on the final play, in the final second of the game with a touchdown pass to a kid just a year out of high school.  It was a heart-stopper and an adrenaline rush all at the same time. 

Education continues

One might think, mightn't one, that a transsexual law student, such as I, would be fully apprised of the case law leading up to our current muddled status as nearly human with almost some rights?  But, no.  I've been aware of the major cases, the Supreme Court cases -- Price Waterhouse as most noteworthy -- and some federal circuit court cases -- Ulane v. Eastern Airlines in the 7th Circuit and Smith v. City of Salem (upon which I reported earlier) in the 6th Circuit -- and even an occasional state court ruling -- Kantaras v. Kantaras in Florida (reported on first here), or the rulings on Littleton in Texas or Gardiner in Kansas (summed here). 

But, I have not done any type of serious research into the area and am largely ignorant, therefore, of the history.  Early this evening, in recognition of National Coming Out Week (NCOW), I am participating on a panel - Legislative Ambiguity: Effect on the LGBTA Rights Movement - in which I am asked to comment upon Proposition 2 that passed here last year as well as the implications of the Smith decision referred to above.  Since I am sharing the dais with a law professor from my school and a lawyer I respect from the ACLU I feel completely outclassed and under-qualified. 

So, I thought I'd do just a little research so I didn't appear completely ignorant and stupid.  In conducting that research, I came across a journal article published this year in the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice.  The article was written by a law student whose former partner was trans-identified and was subject to the harassment and trials that those of us in this community know all too well.  Outraged by this, the student wrote this paper as an analysis of why this is legally tolerated and even perpetuated.  I won't dissect the paper for you here, I encourage you to download it and read it, if you're so inclined.  But, the following quotes just caught my attention and I felt I should share at least this with you (footnotes ommitted): (If you have an interest in the underlying -- excellent article written by Abby Lloyd and published at 20 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 150 email me.

An Open Letter to my Children -- 1998

Today is a melancholy day.  It is gray outside, windy, and cold.  It is the one year anniversary of The Girl's partner's death from breast cancer.  We will go to the cemetary in a little bit.  I am supposed to now be studying, but I cannot.  Instead, my mind wanders.  I think of relationships I've had, loves I've lost.  They are as gone from my life as surely as her former partner is gone from The Girl's. I think of The Girl and her attempts to protect me from her own pain and natural sorrow. In an effort to distract me, I began surfing my own computer.  I came across the letter, below, that I had written to my children 7 1/2 years ago, when I first fully transitioned.  I'm not sure why I am compelled to share this here now.  Still, I just now stumbled across it, so here it is. I've placed it also into the Transistion Stories category.

April 18, 1998

My dear sweet children,

I know there are many questions and many fears you have about the changes in me. I want to take a few minutes to speak to you about them. These are thoughts from my heart, from my soul, directed to you, my children.

I will not now speak of the whys and wherefores of my transgenderism. I have come to terms with it and am comfortable in my skin. I want instead to speak to you about you and about us.

I have told you countless times throughout your lives that “I love you.” I have worked hard to show you, in practical ways, the application of those words. I want you now to take the time to repeat them to yourself. Get into the depth of their meaning. I am now, I have always have been, and I always will be, your father. No force on earth or elsewhere can change that fact. Nothing I do, nothing I say, nothing you do, nothing you say will ever alter that relationship. The same is true of my love. It is eternal and it is unconditional.

There may come a time in your life, nearer now than you may believe, when you will not want me to be a part of some or all of your life and its activities. Regardless of your motives, or even my perception of your motives, I promise to honor and respect your wishes in this regard. Some of that desire for distance will be the normal, healthy growing pains of children learning to be independent of their parents. I suspect those times are never easy for either parent or for child. Our time of this will be more difficult. We will get through it, with love and with compassion.

There may also come a time when you are embarrassed by me or ashamed of me. I want you to know now that I understand that and that it will, in no way, diminish my love or my respect for you. But I ask something of you, I ask something of your intellect and of your humanity. I ask you to recognize now, with that intellect and before that time comes, that those feelings are nothing more than the reflection of your own acceptance of society’s fear and suspicion of the unknown. I helped to cause that in you; I am a part of your societal training. You have nothing to be ashamed of in that feeling. But in its recognition, you are challenged to rise above it. You are challenged to be better than society at large. The price may seem high. The rewards are immeasurable. Lots of people can “talk the talk”, you will be asked to “walk the walk.”

Finally, I must say to you that none of these changes in me are directed outward of myself. It is not done to cause you upset or harm. It was not done to end my marriage and relationship to your mother. It is done for my internal sense of balance. There is no change in who I am. Our relationship as parent/child will not alter unless you wish it. My relationship with your mother ended because of her own personal reasons that she judged good and valid. I cannot question her motives; like all of us, she made a choice for her life. You will be asked to make the same choice. Make the choice for your life, my loves, and not for someone else’s—especially not for society’s.

I love you forever.

Daddy