It's almost as if the Democrats have problem with the ladiez

As pretty much every person in the United States has noted, there are problems with the health care legislation under consideration in Congress. The bills assume women are aquaria, and that people who don't have insurance are lazy jerks who need to be punished (and here I am, thinking that being denied a basic human right is punishment enough). Minor issues.

However, the Senate Democrats have given me yet another reason for outrage. Under their bill, elective cosmetic medical procedures will be subject to a 5% tax.

Here, in a nutshell, are my main objections:

1) Women and transsexual men are the primary market for elective cosmetic medical procedures.

2) The people who get to decide what medical procedures are "elective" and "cosmetic" are typically cissexual men.

I understand the rationale for this tax. Democrats don't have the spine to make good people pay taxes. Why collect taxes from hard working folks who eek out a living speculating on real estate. If anything, they deserve a hug-- it must have been hard laying off all those people. Can't we just make the cast of The Hills pay for everything? Those folks are so annoying-- especially the superficial women. I suppose I should applaud the Democrats' creativity. Normally I'd expect them to raise taxes on cigarettes and Taco Bell, but they've found an even better target for their hatred than smokers and fat people.

I'm sure the Democrats counted on this being a non-controversial item. After all, only rich snotty women have elective cosmetic medical procedures. Except, as I alluded to above, there's a rich history of considering women's health issues to be tangential, even cosmetic, compared to real health problems.

I know I'm supposed to be placated by the fact that there's an exemption to the proposed tax for people who really truly need it. But again, who decides what is medically necessary? And where have I heard that term before? Oh, right... every time someone denies healthcare to transsexual people.

It's not enough that I already pay through the teeth for insurance that doesn't cover most of my medical bills. Never mind my eminent bankruptcy, due in part to the cost of past "elective cosmetic" medical procedures. And forget the fact that I've spent a great deal of time in the past several years trying to figure out how to pull tens of thousands of dollars out of thin air. And the fact that these medical bills aren't tax exempt, like "normal" medical bills for "normal" people. I'm sure I can always just pick up another job to pay the extra tax, just like I did that one time-- er, until I got fired for not having already completed the medical procedures I was trying to save for. But still, better to tax people like me than to make hard working, decent, normal people pay taxes. Thank guys, it means a lot. I'd write you a large check for your next campaign, but, well, you know.

--

As it turns out, someone over at one of those big blogs for normal feminist women was on the case, too. Apparently this isn't such a big deal, as lots of commenters noted that real feminists wouldn't ever have this kinda of icky surgery. Apparently this tax is downright progressive. At least the author has confirmed that she really wasn't considering trans people when she wrote the thread. Also, people with disabilities are icky.

Blogroll revised.

Open Letter to Morehouse

18 October 2009

Dr. William Bynum

Vice President for Student Services

Morehouse College

830 Westview Drive SW

Atlanta, GA 30314

Dear Dr. Bynum:

I hope this letter finds you and the Morehouse College community well. It is in part due to the respect I have for your institution that I am compelled to write to you today in regards to Morehouse’s recently announced “Appropriate Attire Policy.” While I have many personal and professional discomforts with dress codes, I indulge you to consider three issues with the portion of the attire policy that prohibits the wearing of clothing typically associated with women.

First and foremost, I am gravely concerned with the impact of this policy on gay, bisexual, transgender and queer members of the Morehouse community. This policy tells some of your community’s most vulnerable members that they should be ashamed, and that they are not welcome. As an educator, I find this stance counterproductive. As a queer woman, I find any policy that fosters the self-hatred I so often see my brothers and sisters struggling under to be abhorrent. As the Morehouse College administration is well aware, self-hatred is not the only form of violence facing GLBTQ Morehouse students, faculty, and staff. This policy would appear to condone further hostility towards my family at Morehouse, notably the roughly five students you have referred to in public statements. I am as fearful as I am confident that this policy is a step in the wrong direction.

Second, while you are justifiably proud of Morehouse’s tradition of producing leaders of the black community, I ask you to reconsider who that communities includes. When your community included Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., did it also include Bayard Rustin? Does your community include Moses Cannon and his late sister Latiesha Green, who were both shot because a young man objected to who they were, as they sat in a car in our city of Syracuse? Is their family part of your family? LGBTQ people of color have leadership to offer your community. In the face of oppression, they and I need leaders of our own. Will Morehouse graduates provide them?

Lastly, I ask you to consider the economic, psychological, and physical violence that all women, particularly women of color face. Women will not be able to end this violence on our own. The letter of a white, female college professor will not end this violence. In addition to our own collective strength, we need men who are willing to be leaders in their communities. We need Morehouse men. How does a policy that encourages the hatred and fear of femininity and feminine accoutrement bring my sisters and me closer to equality and safety?

I am sure that you have received many passionate pleas on this matter. I anticipate and appreciate your patient consideration of the needs of our respective communities.

Warmest Regards,

Katherine J. Forbes, Ph. D.

CC: Ms. Melissa McEwan

Rev. Irene Moore Monroe

Ms. Monica Roberts

Ms. Pam Spaulding

--

18 October 2009, 930pm

My apologies to Reverend Irene Monroe for completely and inexcusably getting her name wrong in my initial post. I really do read her online work, and find it troubling that I didn't get her name correct.

Justice

As many people are aware, this morning the jury reached a verdict in the trial of Dwight DeLee for the murder of Lateisha Green.  That verdict was that DeLee was guilty of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime, and of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.  I am relieved that the trial ended, and I hope that this verdict brings some small degree of closure to Green's friends and family, who have suffered tremendously in the months since Lateisha's murder.  I'm pleased to see that they have taken some solace in the ruling.

Personally, I am glad to see that the jury recognized that hatred against queer people (although the statute as written and interpreted applies only to actual and perceived sexual orientation) was behind this horrible crime.  I'm not a big fan of the manner in which our society uses prisons as a way of dealing with crime.  I don't feel that longer sentences deter crime.  However, I am tremendously upset that the jury did not recognize this crime for what it was-- murder.  In my opinion, pointing a gun inside a car window and firing represents an intent to kill somebody.  Further, while the jury did find Dwight DeLee guilty of a hate crime, I'm still concerned that the identity of the car's passengers may have impacted the way they viewed the crime.  I'm not a legal scholar, and am not aware of cases of other people who have been shot and killed in a similar manner, but I'd like to think that their cases brought murder convictions.

I don't share the excitement of many trans and LGBT organizations about hate crimes legislation.  I think that it's incredibly important that law enforcement gives a high priority to crimes committed on the basis of bigotry.  There is a long history of law enforcement agencies failing to adequately investigate and prosecute crimes against members of disadvantage groups, or even being complicit in those crimes.  Thankfully, that was far from the case in Syracuse, as it was in Greeley.  I also want the courts, the media and society to acknowledge the violence that occurs against minority communities.  However, I am less enthusiastic about arbitrary and extended sentences that the justice system may misuse.  We must not measure justice in the years of incarceration, but rather in the ability of all people to reach their full potential.

One of the things that struck me during this trial was the state's tremendous ability to wield power over arbitrary matters.  The judge was able to expel people from his courtroom at will, including Lateisha's mother, and just prior to the trial, a baby that was softly whimpering.  There were multiple armed court officers present to enforce the rules of the court.  The judge did not want people sending text messages from his courtroom, and his will was done.  Not only did a court officer demand that I remove my coffee from the courtroom, he also instructed me that it was unacceptable to return with my empty travel mug.  I saw officers confiscate water from members of the gallery.  In fact, the only way for those of us in the gallery to get water was to have a coughing fit, upon which time the judge might nod to an officer, who would pour and deliver a paper cup filled with court approved water to the parched observer.  Inside the courthouse and inside the courtroom, it was clear who held the power.

Everything that I mentioned above is, in my opinion, defensible at some level.  I don't mean to paint a picture of anything other than seasoned, courteous officials who were executing their duties.   Rather, my point is that there were lots of arbitrary rules, and that the county invested individuals with the power and resources to ensure that people followed those rules.

There was one rule that struck me as indefensible.  This was the insistence by attorneys, the judge, and government witnesses in referring to Lateisha Green by her legal name and male pronouns.  I understand that this practice wasn't personal per se.  As the victim of this crime, Green wasn't present, and official documents listed a name and gender that by all accounts, she didn't identify with.  However, identity is personal, almost tautologically so.  The whole business might have struck me as a silly game, were it not for the impact that it had.  Because of the bizarre legal requirements set up by a cissexual establishment, Lateisha Green all but vanished from a trial about her very death, and yes, very identity.  I find it tragically ironic that during the very trial where a young man was found guilty of killing Lateisha Green because of his profound disrespect for her identity, the legal system disrespected Ms. Green in its own way.  This delegitimizing of Lateisha's identity certainly did nothing to dissuade much of the local media from insisting on using her birth name and refusing to accept her womanhood in its coverage.  To me, the whole trial consisted of one big mixed message-- what I took from the government witnesses, the attorneys and the judge (whatever their intent) was that they believed killing a human being was wrong, regardless of how "different" they might be.  I suppose this is progress for trans people, but it's hardly an out-and-out victory.

As I've said, the authorities have shown that they are capable of displays of power for multiple ends, be it maintaining an orderly courtroom, or ensuring the sanctity of legally acceptable identities.  The issue is that real justice often isn't found in a courtroom.  Lateisha Green's family complained that she had been bullied and harassed throughout the four years following her coming out.  They had complained to school officials, and others, but I'm not sure that anyone ever lifted a finger to stop this bullying.  Green's mother reported hearing nasty comments in the courtroom.  I heard rumors of the harassment of LGBT friends of the Green family in the hallway outside of the courtroom.  I saw that the news media has footage of a fight between the Green and DeLee families outside of the courthouse.  What I did not hear about was any of numerous court officials stepping in to stop this harassment.

Don't get me wrong, the district attorney is looking into allegations of witness intimidation.  They appear to be taking Mark Cannon's statement that he was threatened with a gun seriously.  This morning, there was a very visible police presence outside the courthouse, presumably to prevent any violence.

It's not that people in power aren't doing their jobs, it's that their job descriptions are wrong.  Prevention of violence needs to be proactive, not reactive.  Those in power need to use their actions to affirm the value of all human beings.  This means taking bullying seriously.  This means speaking up.  If we're ever going to get to the just society that so many people surrounding this trial spoke of, we're going to need that same establishment that so ably controlled the flow of courtroom water to respect people's identities.  We need school teachers to take bullying seriously, rather than participating in it.  We need citizens to speak up when they see injustice.

I know that there are court cases to be heard and legislative battles to be fought, but let's not wait that long.  Justice isn't just about using the system to protect ourselves-- it's about fighting to replace an arbitrary system with one that values the dignity of all human expression.  Judging from the leadership that Lateisha's friends and family and members of the near-Westside community have shown, we're already on the road to that point.

---

I may add links later; at this point I'm looking for (and writing because) I need a certain degree of closure myself.  I definitely need to take a break (starting now) to spend some time with my family, my hobbies and my career.  However, watching these painful events unfold has certainly galvanized my desire to become a more effective advocate for change within our community.

Comments for Thursday A.M.

As of this writing, the trial of Dwight DeLee has gone to the jury for deliberations.

Laura Vogel of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TDLEF) has been posting thorough summaries of the testimony.  At the moment, I'm not inclined to discuss much other than pointing folks to the summaries, which describe in graphic and uncomfortable detail the events of November 14.  Here are links to TDLEF's summaries for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

---

Here are a couple of observations for future consideration:

In both the defense and the prosecution's closing statements, attorneys referred to Star using a male name (presumably her birth and/or legal name) followed by her name.  All attorneys used female pronouns in reference to her.

The defense attorney stated that on the evening of November 14, Lateisha Green [referred to using her birth name] was wearing nothing "that says this is a person a different sexual orientation."

Chief Assistant DA Doran reminded the jury that the hate crimes statute is written to include crimes based both on actual and perceived sexual orientation: "It's not about whether [Lateisha Green] was gay (we know he [sic] was)."

--

I need to let a certain amount of time pass before I write anything substantial, but I do want to make the observation that there is no reason why attorneys could not simultaneously respect Lateisha Green's identity while simultaneously seeking a hate crimes conviction on the basis of perceived sexual orientation.  The lack of nuance on the part of those who ridiculed Mark Cannon, Teish, and Star is neither inconsistent with the application of a hate crimes enhancement, nor is it justification to disrespect Lateisha Green's identity.

My perception is that the attorneys' decisions to refer to Lateisha Green as if she were a gay man is either strategic or related to their interpretation of their duties as professionals.  I find the whole situation infuriating, and at some point may make more pointed comments about the judge and attorneys, and a legal system imbued with cissexual privilege.  I want to challenge that privilege and those who perpetuate it, but I also am convinced that all parties involved were acting in a highly professional manner, and in a very respectful manner (within the context of that privilege).

--

Also, I want to voice my annoyance at seeing the local media refer to Lateisha Green as a transgender person or transgender individual.  These statements are true, but it offends me to see media outlets avoid referring to her as a woman, either through ignorance or otherwise.

Limited Personal Comments on Day 2 of the Lateisha Green trial

I’m going to be fairly limited in what I post about the trial for a number of reasons.  First, I don’t want to overshadow the public statements of Lateisha Green’s friends and family by replaying the minutae of the trial.  Along those lines, there are a number of non-profit, activist groups who are putting out responsible, carefully-worded and important statements about events surrounding the trial.  Second, I don’t quite feel right about retelling all of the details of the evening of November 14, 2008 to the broader world.  Frankly, I don’t enjoy hearing most of the details.  I’m fairly sure that all parties touched by the events aren’t particularly thrilled about reliving that night, much less about having the details retold over-and-over on the internet.  I would rather leave it to those more intimately tied to the murder of Lateisha Green and the subsequent criminal proceedings to post any such details, were they to deem it appropriate.

Before I make my limited observations, I’d also like to comment about my presence at the trial.  I wrestled with whether or not to attend the trial, and whether or not to blog about it.  I’ve been attending the proceedings because I take the murder of Lateisha Green personally.  I’ve dealt with adversity in my life as a trans person—far less adversity than many (if not most) transsexual people deal with, yet far more than is acceptable.  I’m familiar with the sobering stories of many trans friends, acquaintances and strangers.  Listening to accounts by Green’s family, I am struck by how much love and support she was surrounded with, and how full of life she must have been.  Based on what I’ve heard, it seems to me that in many ways Lateisha Green had a support network that many trans people would be envious of—the sort of support than all human beings deserve.  Yet this was not enough to protect Lateisha from harassment and violence.  I cannot tell you how much this saddens me.  I am attending the trial because I’m hoping that the addition of one more person in the gallery will be a small gesture of support to Lateisha’s friends and family during this difficult time, and because my publically taking notice of the trial sends a message to the community that one more person takes violence (violence writ large, violence against trans people, and violence against a trans person, Lateisha Green) seriously.  I also want to verify that the criminal justice system not only takes the tragic taking of Lateisha Green seriously, but also that those involved do justice to Lateisha by respecting her identity.

Here are comments on three things:

The use of names and pronouns

Throughout testimony for the prosecution that I witnessed (prior to 3:30 p.m.), authorities (multiple police officers, an EMT, and a medical examiner) referred to Ms. Green by her birth name, and used male pronouns in reference to her.  The prosecution and defense did likewise.

I’m not sure what I’d expect, given that Ms. Green’s birth name was also her legal name.  I never met Ms. Green and am loathe to ascribe her with an identity based on my experiences, although given statements from her family that she had been living as Teish for 4 years, and their consistent use of female pronouns in reference to her, this use of names and pronouns troubles me.  I don’t want to speculate about the degree to which the usage of names and pronouns is due to cissexual perspectives on gender, or the degree to which the hate crimes designation is a consideration in how the prosecution has treated Ms. Green’s identity.

Clothing

When asked by the defense whether he noticed anything about Lateisha Green in respect to her sexuality, a police officer refered to her as a man dressed “flamboyantly” and as ‘a man dressed as a woman.’  During cross-examination, the defense discussed the specific clothing Ms. Green was wearing when the officer was observing her medical treatment, and stated that the clothing was not “flamboyant.”

While discussing the external portion of the autopsy, the chief county medical examiner gave a description of Lateisha Green’s underwear, followed by the observation that the sizing of said underwear was consistent with a woman’s undergarment.  The defense objected to this statement, which led to a conference at the bench, after which the prosecution and witness moved on to other subjects.

I’m not going to deconstruct all of this, but again, I personally find all of the above statements troubling.  In my opinion, popular depictions of trans women frequently pay undue attention to details of clothing, particularly undergarments.  The term "flamboyant", and phrase 'man dressed as a woman' are, in my opinion, very loaded.  Presumably, much of this testimony and the back-and-forth about it is related to the hate crimes charge.

A point about an EMT

One of the police officers on the scene testified that an EMT who was treating Ms. Green hesitated after cutting away her shirt revealed a bra.  The officer testified that he told the EMT to keep going, and that Ms. Green was a man.

It’s important to note that the hesitation that the witness mentioned was inconsequential in terms of the medical treatment that Ms. Green received.  There was no discussion of or elaboration on the length of the presumably momentary hesitation.  Again, in light of other testimony during the trial, I see this hesitation as inconsequential with respect to the trial, and Ms. Green's death.  However, as a transsexual woman living in Syracuse, I find this testimony deeply troubling.  I see obvious parallels (and differences) with the death of Tyra Hunter.  Again, I don’t want to make mountains out of molehills, but I’d also prefer to believe that one’s gender identity and expression does not impact the quality of emergency medical care that one receives.

There were lots of other developments today, but I’m assuming that TDLEF or others will touch on them.  I’m not in a mood to discuss all of the minutiae of the trial, and I also don’t want to discuss things that I’m not prepared to discuss in an unemotional manner.

Hope and Community in Syracuse

I'm in an optimistic mood this weekend, and much of it is because of two community events. In my experience, online community can bring people together, but to me, it can also make me feel isolating. I'm not sure what the rules are forming online communities, but they seem much more structured than offline ones. Online communities are often founded on common values. Offline, I often find myself in communities that are determined by proximity. Anyhow, here are two uplifting community responses to anti-LGBT bigotry in Syracuse.

Friday
Over last weekend, someone defaced a local art gallery by writing "There is no such thing as a proud queer" on a window. This isn't the first time I've seen bigoted graffiti in my neighborhood, nor the first the gallery was vandalized. In any case, Rose Viviano, the woman who runs the gallery, decided to mount a community response. Amit Taneja and Laura Hannahs organized a website for queer Central New Yorkers and their allies to send in pictures. On Friday, the gallery held a community gathering, where volunteers hung copies of the pictures sent in to the blog.

Saturday

On Saturday, friends and families of Lateisha Green held a celebration of her life.  It was inspiring to see the mix of people in attendance, all to stand up against injustice and to celebrate the value of life.  One of the biggest things I took out of the event was the importance of showing up, and standing up.  To paraphrase the woman who was leading the events (and it kills me that I can't remember her name), it's not always important to have a polished message or to have a master plan-- what is important is to stand up and not let injustice pass unnoticed.  Doing so creates and strengthens community, and allows us to get through the tough times.

Episode 1, in which social services are not a zero-sum game

A couple of recent posts elsewhere (stemming from timely headlines in the "real" media) remind me of what happens when society assumes that access to social services is a privilege, and not a right.  Health insurance, politics, and the free market do not mix-- they're like oil, water, and, uh... rock?

Look, there's always going to be somebody deciding what procedures are provided to which people.  This will involve politics to some extent.  But, ya know', it'd be cool if doctors had some say.

Anyhow, exhibit A:

Folks over at Feministe were discussing birth certificates for transsexual people.  In the comments, someone (lets call him piny) pointed out that the cost of transsexual-related medicine (I hate that way of putting it, because it relegates some medical procedures to queer world, while normalizing others) should be irrelevant to whether insurers actually pay for it.  And he's right, of course.  Insurers have made the same arguments with regard to mental health and autism, although recent legislation has gotten insured people closer to parity in coverage for mental illness.

Anyhow, lots of nastiness occurs when we suddenly decide that it's too expensive to care for some things.  In the case of hormone replacement therapy for trans people, there's a nifty, unregulated black market (which isn't a completely bad thing, but could be better), and a handful of doctors that cater to affluent clients (who, surprisingly enough, will do what ever it takes to get healthcare, and actually have the means to do so).  Certainly, there is a middle ground of affordable, competent providers, but they're thin on the ground.  Without health insurance coverage, they likely always will be.

This brings me to my thoughts on abortion and charity.  Between politics and insurance, reproductive medicine isn't as accessible as it should be-- not unlike medical care for trans people.  Faced with medical bills myself, I've always wondered about holding a telethon.  Unfortunately, charity does come close to being a zero-sum game.  There's only so much money out there, and where does it go?  Probably not to my hypothetical charity, Kunts4Kids* (which provides access to healthcare for young transwomen).  Or to the equally alliterative and illusional Abortions4Adolescents.  My guess is that the Nancy Reagan telethon for children with terminal cuteness would rake in a lot more money.

Sure, I want to cure terminal cuteness, and every other social acceptable disease.  But this zero-sum crap puts me in the uncomfortable business of arguing that you should give money to my charities, as opposed to other ones.  Salvation Army, anyone?  It's not that I don't want to see a range of charities flourish... it's just that photo-opishness can actually hurt the least-privileged, because non-inclusive charities facilitate the illusion that everyone's being served.

Of course, a lot of the arguments about what health care we can afford are red herrings.  As piny alludes to, if you really think something is necessary health care, you fund it.  We wouldn't let insurers off the hook for cancer treatments (or boner pills, for that matter).  So why would we for trans medicine, reproductive healthcare, autism or anything else?  Ultimately, it depends on what the definition of "we" is.

Which brings me to exhibit B: Washington state's proposed delayed of domestic partner benefits due to budgetary restraints.  Really?  So are "we" citizens of Washington, or not?

--

* Of course, I'm making a joke here, lest you think I'm trying to promote the idea that gender transition is all about genitals.