Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discrimination. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Identity
Do you know any transgendered people?
(I'm listening to your answer, but I don't think you are listening to the question.)
Do you KNOW any transgendered people?
(What's the difference, you ask, between my two questions?)
Let me phrase it this way: Do you openly and genuinely associate on a personal basis with a Transgendered person?
(I do.)
I have more-than-one family member who is transgendered.
(I'm trying to protect their anonymity by being vague about their identity.)
I have several acquaintances who are transgendered.
In all cases, my associations with these people increased my awareness and compassion for the issues they experienced and are still experiencing.
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook, and since he posted it publicly, I shall quote him fairly and in its entirety (the link he refers to is immediately following):
"I'm all for equal rights for everyone, but this perplexes me. Not being insensitive, but I find it hard to believe that a six-year old has the sophistication of thought to culturally identify as transgendered. Would it not be kinder in the long run to tell the child "No, you're a boy. You have these body parts, and that means you use the boy's bathroom" than to foist this level of publicity and attention (some of it sure to be negative) on a first-grader?
This calls several levels of ethical consideration into debate...when does allowing your child to "be who he/she is" actually cause more damage than forcing the child to conform to societal norms? Children are not allowed to drink, drive cars, enter into contracts, engage in sexual behavior, or any number of other things that adults do because they (children) do not possess the knowledge or emotional maturity to make informed decisions.
This particular case also begs the question of whether the other children in the school are being treated fairly. Does exposing them to the concept of transgenderism at such an early age force them to process issues which they are not yet culturally or psychologically prepared to fully comprehend?
Ultimately, I hope that Coy grows up to be a happy, well-adjusted adult, living whatever lifestyle he/she chooses. I also hope becoming an iconic figure as a first-grader doesn't lead to pressures that make that more difficult."
My friend's post surprised me, because he in fact IS probably one of the most open-minded straight people I know, and I truly enjoy his company, friendship, and insights. I also know he won't mind me tackling the issue on my blog, with due respect to him, of course. But his post reveals a conformist tendency that we all fall victim to from time to time. The "don't rock the boat" idea that manifests in the fear that the child might be harmed by the very act of defending that child's rights and identity.
I responded to his post on Facebook with a quick answer, one that I didn't spend a lot of time on, just my gut reaction to his post.
"obviously the child *IS* sophisticated enough to express it, and therefore does deserve to have attention paid to the issue. No one should have their identity forced upon them AT ANY AGE. Three cheers to the child's parents who were actually listening to their child! (If she can think it or feel it, it's real enough to be an issue)"
Too often we think, as evidenced by my friend's post, that children are not aware of their identity. That they need development and maturity to know who they are. That they are too young to understand. But identity starts forming at birth. It begins with family and environment. It succumbs to society and marketing within days, beginning with how the parents view their child (as a boy, as a girl, as a race, as a culture), because, you see, the parents decide how to dress the child, how the child will told to believe, who they will associate with, what toys they will play with, etc. So the parents decisions are shaping the identity of the child - without input from the child.
So the child emerges into self-awareness with much of his or her identity predetermined by how their parents perceived them - and now has to overcome any dissonant components, sometimes with great difficulty. A parent doesn't have anything to go on, at first, EXCEPT genitalia. So being a "boy," or being a "girl," can ONLY begin with what genitalia the child has initially. And upon this the parents start forming the child.
Identity is everything to a person. Dig deep into your own psyche and try to tell me that isn't true. When I think of WHO I am, my first thought is that I am a man - but I am not a penis (nor the color blue or a tonka truck or a cigar or a mustache). I am gay - but I am not sex (or top or bottom). I am emotional - but I am not any specific emotion. I am a member of a family, a member of a community, a member of a minority group, a citizen of a city, a citizen of a state, a citizen of a country. I could go on and on about all the things I am - but the point is, my identity is not tied to the visible, but instead, to the invisible. I am feelings, I am thoughts, I am self-aware... etc. etc. etc.
And yet, so often, I hear gay people say things like, "I knew I was different (at a young age), I just wasn't sure what it was." My transgendered friends say that they "knew" when they were very young (this child's age), but didn't have definitions or specifics of what it is that they "knew." The theme keeps emerging in coming-out-story after coming-out-story after coming-out-story. Not just gay people, but bisexual people and transgendered people, too. I would like to offer the notion that the reason why they "don't know what it was" is because parents, and society, don't give them all the information, thinking that we have to shield them from such things.
I like this article because it means the parents were listening. They were listening when the first ludicrous idea that their boy might identify as a girl manifested in whatever way. They were listening again when the idea persisted. And maybe it took lots of listening, but the parents decided to listen, to give their child audience, to entertain the idea that they child might have a better understanding of her identity than the parents did. And the parents provided information so that the child could know what that something was. They didn't prolong or put-off a conversation with this child - and possibly saved this child years of emotional agony, years of identity-crisis!
I'm not a parent. I'm not transgendered. I can't pretend to fully understand either. I don't think there's any specific age at which it is a perfect time to discuss identity issues, but I would say there are cues and signs at every age. Cues as to whether there is an issue, signs that the issue needs discussion.
But I know that I sure would have liked parents who listened, not just to what I was saying, but to what I wasn't saying, when I was young. I, too, "knew" when I was very young, but had no outlet to explore it - no one to talk to, no one who was listening.
The result? I spent years pretending to be what I thought everyone else wanted me to be - instead of who I was. My environment as a child presented me with what my parents, their social circle and my school considered "normal," but I knew I was different. With lack of information, it became this guilt, this sense of not-belonging, this sense of being different, this sense of being strange, this sense of being weird... and I was just gay - not dealing with the super-complicated transgender identity-crisis that this young child appears to be confronted with.
(I'm listening to your answer, but I don't think you are listening to the question.)
Do you KNOW any transgendered people?
(What's the difference, you ask, between my two questions?)
Let me phrase it this way: Do you openly and genuinely associate on a personal basis with a Transgendered person?
(I do.)
I have more-than-one family member who is transgendered.
(I'm trying to protect their anonymity by being vague about their identity.)
I have several acquaintances who are transgendered.
In all cases, my associations with these people increased my awareness and compassion for the issues they experienced and are still experiencing.
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook, and since he posted it publicly, I shall quote him fairly and in its entirety (the link he refers to is immediately following):
"I'm all for equal rights for everyone, but this perplexes me. Not being insensitive, but I find it hard to believe that a six-year old has the sophistication of thought to culturally identify as transgendered. Would it not be kinder in the long run to tell the child "No, you're a boy. You have these body parts, and that means you use the boy's bathroom" than to foist this level of publicity and attention (some of it sure to be negative) on a first-grader?
This calls several levels of ethical consideration into debate...when does allowing your child to "be who he/she is" actually cause more damage than forcing the child to conform to societal norms? Children are not allowed to drink, drive cars, enter into contracts, engage in sexual behavior, or any number of other things that adults do because they (children) do not possess the knowledge or emotional maturity to make informed decisions.
This particular case also begs the question of whether the other children in the school are being treated fairly. Does exposing them to the concept of transgenderism at such an early age force them to process issues which they are not yet culturally or psychologically prepared to fully comprehend?
Ultimately, I hope that Coy grows up to be a happy, well-adjusted adult, living whatever lifestyle he/she chooses. I also hope becoming an iconic figure as a first-grader doesn't lead to pressures that make that more difficult."
Transgender Girl Wins Right to Use Bathroom at Public School
My friend's post surprised me, because he in fact IS probably one of the most open-minded straight people I know, and I truly enjoy his company, friendship, and insights. I also know he won't mind me tackling the issue on my blog, with due respect to him, of course. But his post reveals a conformist tendency that we all fall victim to from time to time. The "don't rock the boat" idea that manifests in the fear that the child might be harmed by the very act of defending that child's rights and identity.
I responded to his post on Facebook with a quick answer, one that I didn't spend a lot of time on, just my gut reaction to his post.
"obviously the child *IS* sophisticated enough to express it, and therefore does deserve to have attention paid to the issue. No one should have their identity forced upon them AT ANY AGE. Three cheers to the child's parents who were actually listening to their child! (If she can think it or feel it, it's real enough to be an issue)"
Too often we think, as evidenced by my friend's post, that children are not aware of their identity. That they need development and maturity to know who they are. That they are too young to understand. But identity starts forming at birth. It begins with family and environment. It succumbs to society and marketing within days, beginning with how the parents view their child (as a boy, as a girl, as a race, as a culture), because, you see, the parents decide how to dress the child, how the child will told to believe, who they will associate with, what toys they will play with, etc. So the parents decisions are shaping the identity of the child - without input from the child.
So the child emerges into self-awareness with much of his or her identity predetermined by how their parents perceived them - and now has to overcome any dissonant components, sometimes with great difficulty. A parent doesn't have anything to go on, at first, EXCEPT genitalia. So being a "boy," or being a "girl," can ONLY begin with what genitalia the child has initially. And upon this the parents start forming the child.
Identity is everything to a person. Dig deep into your own psyche and try to tell me that isn't true. When I think of WHO I am, my first thought is that I am a man - but I am not a penis (nor the color blue or a tonka truck or a cigar or a mustache). I am gay - but I am not sex (or top or bottom). I am emotional - but I am not any specific emotion. I am a member of a family, a member of a community, a member of a minority group, a citizen of a city, a citizen of a state, a citizen of a country. I could go on and on about all the things I am - but the point is, my identity is not tied to the visible, but instead, to the invisible. I am feelings, I am thoughts, I am self-aware... etc. etc. etc.
And yet, so often, I hear gay people say things like, "I knew I was different (at a young age), I just wasn't sure what it was." My transgendered friends say that they "knew" when they were very young (this child's age), but didn't have definitions or specifics of what it is that they "knew." The theme keeps emerging in coming-out-story after coming-out-story after coming-out-story. Not just gay people, but bisexual people and transgendered people, too. I would like to offer the notion that the reason why they "don't know what it was" is because parents, and society, don't give them all the information, thinking that we have to shield them from such things.
I like this article because it means the parents were listening. They were listening when the first ludicrous idea that their boy might identify as a girl manifested in whatever way. They were listening again when the idea persisted. And maybe it took lots of listening, but the parents decided to listen, to give their child audience, to entertain the idea that they child might have a better understanding of her identity than the parents did. And the parents provided information so that the child could know what that something was. They didn't prolong or put-off a conversation with this child - and possibly saved this child years of emotional agony, years of identity-crisis!
I'm not a parent. I'm not transgendered. I can't pretend to fully understand either. I don't think there's any specific age at which it is a perfect time to discuss identity issues, but I would say there are cues and signs at every age. Cues as to whether there is an issue, signs that the issue needs discussion.
But I know that I sure would have liked parents who listened, not just to what I was saying, but to what I wasn't saying, when I was young. I, too, "knew" when I was very young, but had no outlet to explore it - no one to talk to, no one who was listening.
The result? I spent years pretending to be what I thought everyone else wanted me to be - instead of who I was. My environment as a child presented me with what my parents, their social circle and my school considered "normal," but I knew I was different. With lack of information, it became this guilt, this sense of not-belonging, this sense of being different, this sense of being strange, this sense of being weird... and I was just gay - not dealing with the super-complicated transgender identity-crisis that this young child appears to be confronted with.
In which I hire a staff of gay waiters to wait upon me "hand-and-foot."
In a preemptive strike, I'm going to publicly admit that I have used the words "gay," "homosexual," and maybe even "faggot" in my lifetime. Also, I have even considered hiring an all gay staff of waiters to serve me food and decorate my house. I'm going to admit all this now, because I'm fully aware that someday some lawyer may ask me some questions relating to my use of those words and my contract with the Food Network may come under scrutiny. Oh, and also, some television news networks may become interested in reporting on it.
Ironically, Paula Deen should have followed my lead - because if you say you're sorry BEFORE you are caught for something, Mrs Deen, then people are more forgiving for it.
The way you are playing this out, Mrs. Deen, it sounds like you are apologizing only because you got caught.
Because it sure sounds as if you never took any real, tangible steps to create a pleasant working environment for those beneath you.
In other words, your apology rings shallow, Mrs. Deen.
My apology, on the other hand, is sincere. I have used all three words ("gay," "homosexual," and maybe even "faggot") to describe myself. Occasionally, I even call my friends "gay" or "homosexual." But please don't take it out-of-context and use it against me. I actually AM gay, I actually am homosexual, and when I first struggled with being gay, I may have called myself a faggot or two. Many of my friends are, in fact, "gay" or "homosexual." I don't refer to them as "faggot," because I know the difference. And what gay man wouldn't want a staff of gay men in their life?
But see, words like "gay," "homosexual," and "faggot" often are used to target a minority group in a derogatory fashion, and "I can, myself, determine what offends another person." I am, in fact, aware that some usage of these words are insensitive, so I don't use them in a derogatory fashion. I have even asked other people around me not to use those words in a derogatory fashion. I find the word "faggot," in particular, to be "mean," and I am sensitive to the fact that there are many other derogatory words that are "mean" to my minority group. I make sure people know how I feel about such words, and openly discourage jokes and innuendos that cause harm to my minority group. Furthermore, even though I am not of African-American heritage, I can plainly see that the "N Word" is harmful to a minority group and I don't use it. I have even asked other people around me not to use that word. In fact, I don't believe it is possible to use the "N Word" in any way that would be other-than derogatory, so I fail to see how you could make a statement like "I can't, myself, determine what offends another person," with regard to the use of that word, or with regard to racist jokes.
You see, Mrs Deen, you just can't simply turn a blind eye to how the people in your organization are being made to feel. If you were truly sensitive to the use of the "N Word" and the attitudes it conveys, you should have created policies and made statements and developed procedures for making your organization a friendly work environment. BEFORE the media attention, and your own Food Network's attention, forced you to. If you were truly sensitive to discrimination to members of minority groups then you would not have a discrimination case against your company in the court system.
I am a forgiving person, and I believe you have a lesson to be learned here, Mrs. Deen. The lesson is simply this: slap your brother and yourself upside the head (hard) for being insensitive to minority groups, offer proper compensation to the individual or individuals that were discriminated against in your restaurant, and use the publicity to make positive affirming statements about the minority group(s) - instead of taking a defensive, falsely innocent stance for yourself.
Oh, and, Three Cheers to the Food Network - hip-hip-hooray!
Ironically, Paula Deen should have followed my lead - because if you say you're sorry BEFORE you are caught for something, Mrs Deen, then people are more forgiving for it.
The way you are playing this out, Mrs. Deen, it sounds like you are apologizing only because you got caught.
Because it sure sounds as if you never took any real, tangible steps to create a pleasant working environment for those beneath you.
In other words, your apology rings shallow, Mrs. Deen.
My apology, on the other hand, is sincere. I have used all three words ("gay," "homosexual," and maybe even "faggot") to describe myself. Occasionally, I even call my friends "gay" or "homosexual." But please don't take it out-of-context and use it against me. I actually AM gay, I actually am homosexual, and when I first struggled with being gay, I may have called myself a faggot or two. Many of my friends are, in fact, "gay" or "homosexual." I don't refer to them as "faggot," because I know the difference. And what gay man wouldn't want a staff of gay men in their life?
But see, words like "gay," "homosexual," and "faggot" often are used to target a minority group in a derogatory fashion, and "I can, myself, determine what offends another person." I am, in fact, aware that some usage of these words are insensitive, so I don't use them in a derogatory fashion. I have even asked other people around me not to use those words in a derogatory fashion. I find the word "faggot," in particular, to be "mean," and I am sensitive to the fact that there are many other derogatory words that are "mean" to my minority group. I make sure people know how I feel about such words, and openly discourage jokes and innuendos that cause harm to my minority group. Furthermore, even though I am not of African-American heritage, I can plainly see that the "N Word" is harmful to a minority group and I don't use it. I have even asked other people around me not to use that word. In fact, I don't believe it is possible to use the "N Word" in any way that would be other-than derogatory, so I fail to see how you could make a statement like "I can't, myself, determine what offends another person," with regard to the use of that word, or with regard to racist jokes.
You see, Mrs Deen, you just can't simply turn a blind eye to how the people in your organization are being made to feel. If you were truly sensitive to the use of the "N Word" and the attitudes it conveys, you should have created policies and made statements and developed procedures for making your organization a friendly work environment. BEFORE the media attention, and your own Food Network's attention, forced you to. If you were truly sensitive to discrimination to members of minority groups then you would not have a discrimination case against your company in the court system.
I am a forgiving person, and I believe you have a lesson to be learned here, Mrs. Deen. The lesson is simply this: slap your brother and yourself upside the head (hard) for being insensitive to minority groups, offer proper compensation to the individual or individuals that were discriminated against in your restaurant, and use the publicity to make positive affirming statements about the minority group(s) - instead of taking a defensive, falsely innocent stance for yourself.
Oh, and, Three Cheers to the Food Network - hip-hip-hooray!
Friday, November 16, 2012
Simple Machines.
How can there still be people in my life who claim they love me and care about me and YET still qualify their "love" by saying crap like "I don't agree with your lifestyle," or call being gay a "choice?" WTF?
The truth is, any argument or retort I might have to offer these people tends to be a waste because their minds don't ever want to be changed, they're almighty in their assertion that they are right, and I, therefore, must be wrong.
I suppose I'm just as guilty of that logic.
Point me, if you will, or if you can, to any credible evidence that proves I ever had any choice in being gay.And don't quote me any lemming bible - that is NOT evidence.
Because all evidence I have is to the contrary.
I know many folks who live a falsehood, by hiding their true selves in an unsatisfactory marriage or lonely bachelorhood - wishing, of course, to avoid the "consequences" of being "out." They forget that they are involving innocents in their deceptions - spouses, children, family and friends.
Had I made that "choice," I'm sure I would have committed suicide many years ago, or at the very least, have been victim to severe depression or other mental disorder.
My "lifestyle" is NOT about sex, or lust, or debauchery.
It's about identity, and about having the capacity to love a PERSON, and gender has little to do with it.
And don't tell me "don't knock it until you try it," because not only have I tried it (relationships with women), but I challenge you to find a vehemently straight person who felt the need to "try it" with a same-gendered partner before they "knew" they were straight. They KNOW they're straight, same as I know I'm gay.
And I refuse to live a lie, especially not to satiate religious, societal or moral expectations of a misled and misinformed group of people or individual.
So, I am forced to move beyond such arguments with people who might never be convinced by logic. Instead, I'm forced to examine the importance of my relationships with such people: Just how important is "family?" My assertion is that "family" is defined by people who actually ACT LIKE IT, and most times has absolutely NOTHING to do with blood ties. And in that sense, family is very important to me.
My assertion is that love of a person is unconditional, but the degree in which I need that person involved in my life is directly related to my comfort level with that person. Obviously, if they're willing to try, so am I, and in doing so, I might gently change their minds through example - through them seeing that my relationship has richness, fulfillment, quality - and genuine love. They may be able to see that whatever prejudice or preconceived notion they may have about a gay person is changed by their willingness to care, to be involved, to be open-minded.
With such open-minded or open-hearted people, it is easy to see a clear path for association, for friendship, for quality relations.
But just how (and why) do I need a person in my life who is closed in mind and heart? Shall I just dismiss them, count them out, edit them out of my life? Should they be deleted (in modern terms) from my Facebook, my twitter, my newsfeed? Should I recognize that they are unchangeable, immovable, hopeless - in terms of their capacity for unconditional love?
One thing I know for sure: I'm NOT editing my life for their personal comfort - NOR should they. Certainly they are entitled to their opinion, and I defend their right to do so, just as surely as I defend my own right. But i don't have to compromise my integrity, my happiness or my identity.
But I have to ask, if that is their mindset - if their hearts are truly closed, why do they insist on calling me "family?" Are they relying too heavily on a deep-rooted "traditional" definition of the word?
If "family" is so important to them, why does it seem to come with conditions (I love you but I don't agree with your lifestyle...), with prerequisites (we don't talk about, or just simply ignore, the "gay" thing)?
I'm left with the only logical conclusion - and that is simply that they're leaving a door open for dialogue, whether it be locked, barred, bolted, welded or otherwise - the door is still there, and I should not give up hope. If the door wasn't there, why do they bother? Why not just simply be completely uninvolved? Why include me in their life at all?
So with that in consideration, I have to study intent. Perhaps the phrasing, the word choice, is a an accidental offense, one that comes from a lack of familiarity or association with real-live-gay-people. Perhaps they simply do not know they are being offensive.
So, I'll just continue to be myself. They can continue to be themselves. Perhaps by continued association, we will both learn the intent of the other, and it won't be so bad as it was in my head. There are keys to locks, pry bars for bolts, the inclined plane was invented for exactly this purpose. The gentle wedge shall prevail.
And if it doesn't, time will solve it, eventually - TIME - the simplest machine of them all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)