WayGay: Combined Gay News Headlines (T5T-1)

You have to hand it to the enterprising gays and lesbians of Salt Lake City. Living in a town dominated by the Mormon Temple, their attempt at passing gay rights bills squashed by the state legislature and their State Senator Chris Buttars (pictured, left with fan) taking time out from his busy schedule to compare [...]

On a day where the Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped to 1997 levels, the Human Rights Campaign fended off rumors that it would be cutting staff and freezing salaries to "weather the storm". HRC spokesperson Brad Luna said the gay rights organization was in talks with the Service Employees International Union, which employees are members [...]

After Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and star Sean Penn got done thanking the Academy for honoring their work, they made their requisite trips back to the press room to answer questions from eager reporters. Let's tune in:Read the rest of Oscar Backstage: Dustin Lance Black & Sean Penn Have a Message For Obama Permalink | 8 [...]

You can click on the image for a larger view…

â€œIf Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he would want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than by the churches, by the government, by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value, and [...]

I was on the Mike Signorile Show today and we discussed recent comments made by Attorney General Eric Holder at an event at the Justice Department in honor of Black History Month:

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in two many ways, a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial.
...And we, in this room, bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example, the Department of Justice - this Department of Justice - as long as I'm here, must and will leave the nation to the new birth of freedom so long ago promised by our greatest president. This is our duty, this is our solemn responsibility.

I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard these remarks because, as regular readers know, I frequently blog about why it's sometimes hard to speak freely and frankly about race in American society. I can't stand the seeing the term "post-racial" tossed around out there as truth, particularly when referring to the past election cycle or now that Barack Obama is president. I think we have plenty of evidence that we have a long way to go on the matter. I thought Holder was refreshingly frank; we all have fears of broaching the subject -- and the problem is not just on the right side of the aisle.

Take Maureen Dowd's reaction to Holder's comments; apparently the use of the word "coward" sent her into a paranoid tirade:

Yet Obama is oozing empathy compared with his attorney general, who last week called us "a nation of cowards" about race.
...We need leaders to help us through our crises, not provide us with crude evaluations of our character. And we don't need sermons from liberal virtuecrats, anymore than from conservative virtuecrats.
...In the middle of all the Heimlich maneuvers required now - for the economy, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, health care, the environment and education - we don't need a Jackson/Sharpton-style lecture on race. Barack Obama's election was supposed to get us past that.

Wow, where was the lecture, where was the sermon? I take it that the "Jackson/Sharpton" reference is shorthand for "those blacks from the old school who lay a guilt trip on whitey." Talk about dog whistles. Moreover, Holder was addressing ALL of us, not just white folks. I took his statement as inclusive. We are all responsible for the silence. You see, in Dowd's mind, Holder became the Angry Black Man when he said that; it blew away the post-racial fantasy she loved clinging to. One has to wonder -- in the wake of the unbelievable New York Post cartoon -- why she didn't get a reality check last week. As I said to Mike, the truth is, she reacted viscerally, and became defensive and transmitted it through her keyboard.

So did right-winger Jonah Goldberg, who called Holder's statement "both hackneyed and reprehensible." His reaction to Holder's comments is even more absurd -- and revealing. Read it below the fold.
Goldberg:

I think this is nonsense as we talk about race a great, great, great deal in this country. Endless courses in colleges and universities, chapters in high school textbooks, movies, documentaries, after-school-specials and so on are devoted to discussing race. We even have something called "Black History Month" - the occasion for Holder's remarks to begin with - when America is supposed to spend a month talking about the black experience.
Second, to the extent we don't talk about race in this country the primary reason is that liberals and racial activists have an annoying habit of attacking anyone who doesn't read from a liberal script "racists" or, if they're lucky, "insensitive."

Someone please change his Pampers; that's a pantload. Leaving aside the fact that Goldberg feels oppressed because people get to learn more about black history in February, he's in such a frenzy that he misses Holder's point -- we're not talking about discussing race on an Ivory Tower panel, with eggheads debating the merits of, say, affirmative action. It's not about any studies, polls, after-school specials or class readings. The AG said:

we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial.

He's pointing a finger at you and me -- you and your neighbor, you and your colleagues at work. We are the ones who fail to engage on the topic of race because we feel so exposed, as I told Mike, afraid of being called stupid, racist or a bigot for simply asking questions out of ignorance and desire to learn, particularly if you don't have much personal experience with people outside of your race. That's tough stuff.

How many close black friends -- and I don't mean casual acquaintances -- do you think Goldberg has? Somehow, based on that diatribe, he can't have many. OK, well maybe not if he's friends with Jesse Lee Peterson.

Human nature makes it hard to reach out; Dowd and Goldberg, who clearly came unglued at Holder's use of the word "coward" simply dismissed the sentiment and message within it, and even worse, saw affronts that didn't exist directed solely at whites. But that's why we have to talk about race. This all cuts both ways, and there's no shame in admitting there's a problem and being part of the solution begins in your personal interactions, not pontificating in a paranoid fashion in a column.

I didn't use the word "coward," but I did call the American public "lazy" about going outside racial comfort zones in a recent post -- and it's the truth.

It takes effort and desire to expand your life experience by being socially inclusive; quite frankly associating with people who are more like you than less like you is the default of the majority of us. Is it lazy? Yes, but obviously the path of least resistance is human nature. What disturbs me is the lack of curiosity I've seen in too many people; they don't see learning about and learning from people from a different culture or race on a personal level has value for them. Staying in a comfort zone of homogeneity clearly has more value.
How do we own up to and fight our natural impulses in order to better ourselves -- and our country?

***

I couldn't resist sharing this one reaction to Holder's address -- Faux News talking head Megyn Kelly. Her interpretation is completely over the edge, no doubt reflecting some of the thinking on the right as they went breathless over this part of Holder's statement.

And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.

Protect your keyboards as you watch her discussion with Juan Williams...

KELLY: He said they [the department] has a special responsibility in addressing racial ills. That - that strikes fear down the spines of many conservatives in this country, because they don't want the Justice Department taking us back to the day when they get heavily involved in things like affirmative action, and things like voter registration rights. [...]
WILLIAMS: What you will see I think is more aggressive enforcement in terms of existing civil rights laws. And that was the fear that the existing civil rights laws were not being enforced by the Bush justice department.
KELLY: Well a lot of people thought that the Bush Justice Department sort of got us back to the point where we were - we were being reasonable.

I sh*t you not. The Bush record, particularly about protecting voting rights, is abominable; Holder stood up there that day and meant that the time of inaction and contempt for the rule of law is over. The LA Times reported that from 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. Hello -- remember Ohio, with Ken Blackwell's shenanigans (broken machines and not enough of them in predominantly black precincts)? And all those other states where votes "disappeared"? Please.

Perhaps this will silence some of the critics who can't let go of the zombie meme that most blacks are homophobic -- and that leadership won't step up and say something. This hits all the right notes. (via press release, no link):

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People today announced support of measures before the California legislature challenging Proposition 8, which altered the California Constitution to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry and equal protection under the law.
In a letter to legislative leaders, NAACP national board chair Julian Bond and President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous urged passage of House Resolution 5 and Senate Resolution 7 to put the legislature on record calling for invalidation of Prop. 8 as an improper and dangerous alteration of the California Constitution.
"The NAACP's mission is to help create a society where all Americans have equal protection and opportunity under the law," said President Jealous. "Our Mission Statement calls for the 'equality of rights of all persons.' Prop. 8 strips same-sex couples of a fundamental freedom, as defined by the California State Supreme Court. In so doing, it poses a serious threat to all Americans. Prop. 8 is a discriminatory, unprecedented change to the California Constitution that, if allowed to stand, would undermine the very purpose of a constitution and courts - assuring equal protection and opportunity for all and safeguarding minorities from the tyranny of the majority."
SR 7, sponsored by Equality California (EQCA), will be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 24th and will proceed to the full Senate for a vote shortly thereafter. Its companion bill, HR 5, also sponsored by EQCA, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Feb. 17th and is eligible for a vote before the full Assembly as early as today.
The California State Conference of the NAACP filed briefs with the California Supreme Court in the legal challenge against Prop. 8, arguing that the measure drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California's Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. Several other civil rights organizations, faith leaders, unions and leading corporations also filed briefs urging the invalidation of Prop. 8.
"The NAACP has long opposed any proposal that would alter the federal or state constitutions for the purpose of excluding any groups or individuals from guarantees of equal protection," said Chairman Bond. "We urge the legislature to declare that Proposition 8 did not follow the proper protective process and should be overturned as an invalid alteration that vitiated crucial constitutional safeguards and fundamental American values, threatening civil rights and all vulnerable minorities."

Needless to say, this is the message that needs to be spread throughout churches in the socially conservative black communities around the country.

Note: All the images in this diary are selectable, and selecting document images will take you to specific documents that are related to this Pam's House Blend diary.

In June, the American Medical Association approved a new policy on the care of transgender patients, effectively putting [Veterans Administration] policy at odds with the recommendations of the nation's largest doctors group.
--Carol Ann Alaimo, writing for the Arizona Star
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[The] VA is in the process of rewriting its directive excluding gender-reassignment surgery and will be conducting a review of the evidence base on this issue. The current policy may continue or may change, but our decision will be based on the available evidence, not on the AMA's resolution.
--Terry Jemison, VA spokesman, as quoted in the same Arizona Star article

As most readers of Pam's House Blend know, I'm a disabled, military veteran. I served 20-years in the U.S. Navy, and retired in September of 2000 as a Fire Control Petty Officer First Class. And, although I reported to the USS Gary (FFG-51) two months there after the ground war ended -- a ship serving in the Persian Gulf in 1991 -- I'm considered by the Veterans Administration (VA) to be a Persian Gulf War veteran. My disabilities are identified by the VA as "service connected."

I also identify as transsexual and transgender. With the intersection of my statuses of indentifying as a disabled, Persian Gulf War veteran and as a transgender woman, I identify myself as a disabled, transgender veteran.

The policy changes that are under review would impact me personally. Let me explain some of the background of to why and how:

A year ago last month I had a gastric bypass surgery at the San Diego's VA Medical Center. This is what I wrote about my gastric bypass in February of last year:

These days, I don't usually talk about the shape of my genitalia or about my secondary sex characteristics because, frankly, my gender isn't determined by these. I know I'm female just because I just know -- as actually how most people know what their gender is. But, per my birth state's laws, my legal sex is determined pretty much by the shape of my genitalia. There are some commenters here at PHB, as well as a lot of the religious right community, that are genitalia essentialists -- they see me as a man because of the current shape of my genitalia (in the case of commenters here at PHB) now, or see me always as a man because of the shape of my genitalia at birth/because they believe my genetics will indicate I'm male.
But, I'm discussing the current shape of my genitalia because it's significant as to one reason why I'm having gastric bypass surgery...
To expand on that paragraph above, second only to long term health and longevity concerns is being at a weight where I'm eligible for [genital reconstruction surgery] (GRS) -- also called sex reassignment surgery (SRS). I really want my legal sex to match my gender, and gastric bypass is the first step in my five year surgical plan. That's because reputable surgeons won't accomplish GRS on male-to-female transsexuals unless he or she is under a certain weight. Usually that weight is between 200 and 210 pounds -- I haven't weighed 200 pounds since early 2004. I'm at 260 now, as I said in this diary's opening paragraph, and 260 is probably the least I've weighed in close to two years. I haven't been eligible for GRS; I want to be eligible for GRS.

I'm now at a weight where I'm eligible for GRS, yet I'm on a multi-year plan to save for this surgery, based on the assumption that my GRS related costs are going to come out of my pocket. The VA won't pay for GRS, or most other treatments associated for being transsexual: I've been told before (although I can't verify the story's veracity) that Sen. Jesse Helms made sure this was added to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 38, Chapter 17, Section (c) (38CFR17.38, entitled Medical benefits package, emphasis added):

(c) In addition to the care specifically excluded from the "medical benefits package" under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the "medical benefits package" does not include the following:
(1) Abortions and abortion counseling.
(2) In vitro fertilization.
(3) Drugs, biologicals, and medical devices not approved by the Food and Drug Administration unless the treating medical facility is conducting formal clinical trials under an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) or an Investigational New Drug (IND) application, or the drugs, biologicals, or medical devices are prescribed under a compassionate use exemption.
(4) Gender alterations.
(5) Hospital and outpatient care for a veteran who is either a patient or inmate in an institution of another government agency if that agency has a duty to give the care or services.
(6) Membership in spas and health clubs.

According to the Arizona Star, the rules are under review:

[Below the fold, the Veterans Administration's policies on transgender related healthcare aren't in alignment with the American Medical Association's policies on transgender related healthcare due to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 38, Chapter 17, Section 38.c.]

National Department of Veterans Affairs policy -- now under review -- specifically forbids veterans hospitals to perform or pay for "transsexual surgery." It also does not provide for the related health care that experts recommend, such as psychotherapy, hormone treatment and other measures.
Officials at VA headquarters, given 10 business days to answer, said they couldn't determine how many transgender patients are in the VA system nationwide.
Officials at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System -- Tucson's veterans hospital -- said 48 VA patients in Southern Arizona are transsexual or have been diagnosed at some point with "gender-identity disorder," the medical term that covers such cases.
A national advocacy group estimates that about 300,000 active or retired military personnel are transgender, though experts say an accurate count is impossible because many live under the radar to escape social stigma.

I believe this means that the VA is looking into adopting policies that are in line with the Boston VA Medical Center's policy; I don't believe anyone at this point is seriously pushing for the excising gender alteration from the list of exclusions in Public Law 38CFR17.38.

But, what services the VA offers me, a transgender veteran with a 100%, VA service connected disability rating, depends a great deal on Public Law 38CFR17.38, and how my particular VA facility interprets that public law.

With that said though, I'll repeat the quote of VA spokesman Terry Jemison:

[The] VA is in the process of rewriting its directive excluding gender-reassignment surgery and will be conducting a review of the evidence base on this issue. The current policy may continue or may change, but our decision will be based on the available evidence, not on the AMA's resolution.

So should the VA be required to offer veterans like me genital reconstruction surgery? If not, should the VA be able to offer me services short of GRS (or any other surgery related to my gender identity) -- such as appropriate psychological treatment, prescription hormones, and voice therapy -- that may be interpreted currently by VA facilities as supporting gender alterations in violation of public law? Should the antidiscrimination policy and access to medical care policy of the VA towards transgender patients mirror the antidiscrimination policy and access of medical care policy of the American Medical Association?

These are all questions that I'd like answers to, and answers that would would conform to my peers and my collective self interests. Whatever the answers tun out to be in the future for those questions, the answers will continue to directly impact my life, as well as the lives of all of the other disabled veterans who identify as transgender and/or transsexual.

~~~~
Further reading:
* Arizona Star: Transgender vets a hidden population (Related Pam's House Blend Quick Hit: Transgender vets a hidden population)
* Gay & Lesbian Times: Transgender Veterans: Beyond 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' transgender vets face different discriminations in the armed services
* The Palm Center (a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara): Does "don't ask, don't tell" impact transgender service members?
* American Psychological Association (APA): Answers to Your Questions About Transgender Individuals and Gender Identity
* American Medical Association (AMA): Anti-discrimination policy expanded to transgendered
* American Medical Association (AMA): Removing Financial Barriers to Care for Transgender Patients

Together, we are building a more inclusive and sustainable community that is good for business and good for Oregon. The investment of the business community has made a critical difference in our work for equality, and thanks to the leadership of the business community, Oregon is now a better place to live, work, and raise a better place to live, work, and raise a [...]

Did you notice last night that both Sean Penn & Dustin Lance were able to use their Oscar acceptance speeches to continue the ongoing conversation on LGBT rights, and in particular, marriage equality? This is certainly not the first time that an award winner has turned their acceptance speech into a political platform - In 2007, [...]

State Senator Chris Buttars, a Republican lawmaker in Utah, thought he could get away with calling LGBT advocates "the greatest threat to America."

Friday: A bit of this, a bit of that — including some updates to stories we’ve been following here at Gay News Bits: Court Cases: - The Lawrence King case: Oxnard school shooting suspect’s appeal rejected (A state appellate court has denied an appeal filed by lawyers for seeking information on why the DA decided to prosecute [...]

WayGay

Monday, February 23, 2009

Combined Gay News Headlines (T5T-1)

No comments:

Blog Roll

Links

Blog Archive