Radical Doula

I saw this documentary, Southern Comfort, a few months ago and have been meaning to post about it ever since. It was a really touching story, and an interesting look into the life of a few transgender people living in the Deep South. The focus of the movie is a trans man, Robert Eads. It’s about his story and battle with ovarian cancer (which he eventually succumbs to) and the people in his life, including his partner, Lola, pictured here.

What makes Robert’s story particularly remarkable is that he had tried to get a hysterectomy during his transition, but his doctors refused. The procedure would have saved his life, as he eventually was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. His other friends in the film also talk about the transphobia they faced in receiving necessary medical care. It’s a serious issue, and not just for trans people living in the rural south.

It’s a great documentary, I highly recommend it. Southern Comfort is also the name of a yearly trans convention that happens in Atlanta, Georgia.

From the ACLU’s blog, the Blog of Rights Symposium. Thanks to Nancy Goldstein for inviting to participate! In a related vein, I was recently on NPR’s Here and Now with Robin Young also talking about gay marriage. This was particularly fun, as it was me and a log cabin republican. You can listen to the show here, the segment begins five minutes in.

It’s official. Same sex couples can get married in California, as of 5 p.m. PST on Monday. While most people in the GLBT community are celebrating the decision, my excitement was rather muted. While I am touched by the stories of couples getting married after 50 years together, I know that marriage isn’t my golden ticket. Marriage isn’t my golden ticket unless I’m lucky enough (or even want) a long-term monogamous partnership. It isn’t my golden ticket unless I have a job or a partner with healthcare benefits. It isn’t my golden ticket unless I have an inheritance to worry about, or a pension to be concerned with.

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, a radical activist and writer has been one very vocal voice of dissent. From her piece at Alternet:

Gay marriage does nothing to address fundamental problems of inequality. What is needed is universal access to basic necessities like housing, health care, food, and the benefits now obtained through citizenship (like the right to stay in this country). Legalized gay marriage means only that certain people in a specific type of long-term, monogamous relationship sanctioned by a state contract might be able to access benefits. While marriage could confer inclusion under a spouse’s health-care policy, it does nothing to provide such a policy. Marriage might ensure hospital visitation rights, but not for anyone without a spouse. Marriage may allow for inheritance rights between spouses, but what if there is nothing to inherit?

While I would not go as far as Mattilda to say that I oppose the CA marriage decision, I agree with her that a movement so focused on marriage is not a movement that represents my activism and interests. She also makes the important point that marriage is not a cure-all. So many problems exist in our society that deserve our attention and it’s upsetting to me to see the majority of the resources of our movement being allocated to marriage-only fights. Social benefits should not only be afforded to those who enter into long-term romantic partnerships. I said as much on a recent segment of NPR’s Here and Now.

Thankfully there are groups and activists who are working for a broader vision of what marriage equality might look like. Queers for Economic Justice put out a Beyond Marriage statement in 2006, with pages of important sign-ons in support of their principles:

The current debate over marriage, same-sex and otherwise, ignores the needs and desires of so many in a nation where household diversity is the demographic norm. We seek to…diversify and democratize partnership and household recognition. We advocate the expansion of existing legal statuses, social services and benefits to support the needs of all our households.

As a queer Latina working in the reproductive justice movement, my vision of social justice focuses on putting the needs of the most marginalized members of our community at the center of our organizing. The current marriage-focused movement fails to do this. Issues like universal health care, immigration reform, comprehensive sex education, ending gender-based discrimination and violence are central to my activism and I would love to see a queer movement that reflected these values as well.

I posted about this yesterday over at Feministing, and I wanted to link here in case you didn’t see it. There was some really good conversation in the comments, be sure to check it out.

An exerpt:

The American Psychiatric Association appointed members at the beginning of May to the Committee on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders for the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).

This committee will be reexamining the DSM-V, which is the manual of mental disorders that controls the diagnosis and treatment of gender and sexual difference. It was a big deal when homosexuality was declassified as a disorder, and some queer and trans activists are calling for gender identity dysphoria to be similarly declassified.

Since then, lots of people have been expressing their concern about two particular appointments: Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker (who has been appointed as chair).

From Rea Carey, Acting Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

We are very concerned about these appointments. Kenneth Zucker and Ray Blanchard are clearly out of step with the occurring shift in how doctors and other health professionals think about transgender people and gender variance. It is extremely disappointing and disturbing that the APA appears to be failing in keeping up with the times when it comes to serving the needs of transgender adults and gender-variant children.

Read the rest of the post over at Feministing.

Sad.

The revised Employment Non-Discrimination Act which would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace, but with references to gender identity removed, is headed to a vote on the House floor following approval Thursday in committee.

The House Education and Labor Committee voted 27 - 21 to mark up the legislation, sending it to a full vote in the House.

Another minority group gets sold up the river in the name of political compromise. Really disappointing.

Today is National Coming Out Day! In honor of which, I’m wearing my All Families Matter rainbow button. According to Alison Bechdel (and Wikipedia) National Coming Out day was founded in 1987. Share your coming out story with someone, or wear a rainbow button or sticker.

A great response to the Aravosis article I posted on earlier this week (see below) was just put up at Salon. Susan Stryker writes a witty, angry and totally on point response to Aravosis’ small-minded arguments about gender identity inclusion in the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA). Her best point? That simply having protection against discrimination for sexual preference or sexuality only protects those in the community who are straight-acting.

This full version of ENDA, rather than the nearly introduced one that stripped away previously agreed-upon protections against gender-based discrimination and would protect only sexual orientation, is the one that is of potential benefit to all Americans, and not just to a narrow demographic slice of straight-looking, straight-acting gays and lesbians. It doesn’t really even do that much good for this group, as Lambda Legal points out, because of a loophole big enough to drive a truck through.

Aravosis, not being one to mince words when it comes to mincing meat, wants to know what he, as a gay man, has “in common with a man who wants to cut off his penis, surgically construct a vagina, and become a woman.” The answer is “gender.” The last time I checked my dictionary, homosexuality had something to with people of one gender tending to fall in love with people of the same gender. The meaning of homosexuality thus depends on the definition of gender. However much Aravosis might wish to cut the trannies away from the rest of his herd, thereby preserving a place free of gender trouble for just plain gay guys such as himself, that operation isn’t conceptually possible. Gender and sexuality are like two lines intersecting on a graph, and trying to make them parallel undoes the very notion of homo-, hetero- or bisexuality.

You rock Susan. Read the whole article here.