One of the odd parallels between African-American experience and trans experience is the concept of "good hair." So, without trying to appropriate the experience of African-Americans and "good hair," let me talk about what good hair is to many trans women.
And too, let me add that the concept of good trans hair is mostly a concept of middle-aged, caucasian transsexual women. I haven't heard this concept discussed in any other subset of trans people -- I've not heard "good hair" being discussed by Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, or Asian-American trans women, for example, with the one exception of my Latina friend (my best friend!) Vicki Estrada.
So, what is "bad hair" to these trans women in question? It's male pattern baldness in any form; it's a high forehead hairline; it's thin strands of hair that don't look like full-bodied hair; it's short hair one has early in transition left over from presenting as male. "Good hair" for the trans women in question is hair that would look natural on their heads, and appropriate woman of their visible age.
The answer to bad hair often involves weaves, extensions, and/or wigs/wiglets. Sometimes "fixing" one's "bad hair" even involves surgery. For example, I personally know two friends who've had surgery to fix their high hairlines by having hair line surgically pulled down -- forehead skin removed in the process -- and two other trans friends who have had their hair moved densely haired regions of their heads to the bald/balding spot on the backs of their heads.
And, I believe it matters. Literally, trans women are judged by their hair, and civil rights are actually involved with the perception of trans hair. Quoting a recent example by Lindsey Douthit, in a piece for the Concerned Women For America (emphasis added):
The ENDA hearing should serve as a wake-up call to Christians that they must continue to fight for religious liberty. Legislation such as ENDA serves to normalize, and even glorify, in the guise of "progressive popular culture," lifestyles that Biblical doctrine clearly teaches are wrong. Legislation like ENDA makes people think they can never be free from their sexual and other sins when in fact, Jesus Christ can save every person from all his sins, even homosexuality. ;nbsp;Don't be fooled -- the radical implications of ENDA are as noticeable as the glossy wigs and deep voices of the hurting and desperate transgendered female activists at the hearing who so desperately need the life-changing Gospel message offering them freedom from sin.
I have been told I have "good hair" by transgender and cisgender people alike. Although my hair color is not longer my natural color (which is now pretty gray under the coloring), 
my hair is dyed pretty closely to the dark blond it was in my early twenties. That said, my hair is pretty thick, and the curls are natural. I don't have to wear hats at all, but I like berets and beanies, so I wear berets and beanies.
Of course, I spend more money, as well as spend more time, on my hair now. For cash spent, coloring and cutting my hair once every eight weeks costs far more than getting my hair cut in that military style every two weeks back when I was in the Navy. In other words, military style haircuts cost less than one cut and color.
And, when my hair was military length short hair, I went from just washing my hair every day -- alternately with a coal tar activated shampoo (to control my seborrhea) and a standard shampoo -- to washing my hair with two shampoos every other day -- one hard-water shampoo to strip my hair of various hair products, and a second, prescription shampoo (again, issue is controlling my seborrhea). And now too, I've added the use of a conditioner and a separate detangler, as well as using a glaze for the top of my hair, and a serum for the sides and back of my hair -- both of those to control the curly hair frizziness I didn't experience when my hair was military length short.
So, by dying my hair and using multiple products -- by expending money and time -- I'm judged to have "good hair." That is, I'm judged to have "good trans hair."
Sometimes, understanding between people who belong to minority groups come from the understanding of parallels and commonalities. My point in this piece is to show that my trans community's and my personal experiences with hair aren't the same as African-American women have with their hair, but there are a lot of parallels and commonalities to the experience of our respective communities defining exactly what "good hair" is within our respective communities. The concept of "good hair" effects African-American women and trans women as individuals, and how it effects the separate (but overlapping), respective communities.
As John F. Kennedy was quoted as saying:
So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved.
If a discussion of "good hair" is a something I can use as a tool to build bridges to others in other communities, where those who work on civil rights concerns of individual communities could see the issues as being about broader and overlapping communities, then hair is a means I'm going to use to start discussion about our common civil rights interests.
~~~~~
Related:
* Hair And Black Self-Loathing
* Black women and Their Hair - Back in the Day
* Chris Rock takes on black hair pathology in the documentary 'Good Hair'
* Hair pathology continues: Tyra 'courageously' shows her own locks on the air
* I'm Revolted: My Oldest Step-Daughter has Straightened Her Wavy Hair
* Pam's Hair Page
Cross-posted at Eclectablog.
October 3, 2009, the Washtenaw County Democratic Party held its annual dinner. Three U.S. Congressmen were in attendance. The first was freshman Representative Mark Schauer, a young, vibrant and optimistic Congressman. The second was Representative John Dingell, the longest-serving member in Congress today and a man who has introduced a single-payer health care bill every year for 52 years. The third was a pioneer in the Civil Rights Movement, a man jailed over 40 times, beaten and bloodied for his views and actions, Representative John Lewis from Georgia. He attended President Obama's inauguration as the only living speaker from the rally at the March on Washington.
These three men, from dramatically different backgrounds and perspectives, all spoke with one voice in saying that health care reform in this country is the civil rights struggle of our time.
From L to R: County Dem. Party Chair Stu Dowty, Rep. Mark Schauer, Rep. John Dingell, Rep. John Lewis
All photos below the fold by Anne Savage. Visit her website, Flickr Page, and blog.
First to speak was Rep. Mark Schauer. He had a little something to say about Joe "the Heckler" Wilson appearing in Michigan with his Republican opponent Tim Walberg:
We were asked to comment and, of course, I had nothing to say. But some of my people did and one of the things they said was you are the company you keep. And, so, Tim Walberg has Joe Wilson and I have John Dingell and John Lewis.
And then he spoke of his two colleagues. And he put today's struggle to pass health care reform in the context of the American Civil Rights Movement that John Lewis was such an integral part of. He spoke, along with Dr. Martin Luther King, at the March on Washington at age 23, the youngest speaker that day. Lewis also tookso took part in the famous Freedom Rides and was beaten and bloodied crossing a bridge in Selma marching for the right to vote. From his Wikipedia entry:
Lewis was instrumental in organizing student sit-ins, bus boycotts and non-violent protests in the fight for voter and racial equality. He endured brutal beatings by angry mobs and suffered a fractured skull at the hands of Alabama State police as he led a march of 600 people in Selma, Ala. in 1965Here's what Rep. Schauer had to say about his two colleagues:
In an era when genuine American heroes are harder and harder to come by, it's an honor for me to serve with Congressman Lewis in the House and a real treat to have him here in Michigan tonight. Thank you, John, for being here. Thank you for everything you've done to make this country a better place and for your passion and integrity and for keeping Dr. King's dream alive...As you know, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle." Well, America and Michigan voted for change last year but now we have a better sense of what Dr. King meant when he said change comes through continuous struggle. The struggle now, of course, is over health care reform, something John Dingell knows a little bit about. One of the criticisms I often hear around my district about this effort is "what's the rush?" Well, John Dingell has been introducing a bill to provide health insurance to every single American since 1957, before I was born. Before I was born and I'm getting gray hair! So it's been too long. So when people ask, "what's the rush?", I say we can't afford to wait. It's been a long struggle, decades in the making, but when health insurance reform - WHEN health insurance reform passes this year in the US Congress, the name on the bill will be of the man I'm proud to serve with and proud to introduce, your Congressman John Dingell.
And then the esteemed John Dingell spoke. He introduced Rep. Lewis and in the process, he tied Lewis' history fighting for civil rights in this country to the battle ahead over health care reform.
It my privilege to try to do the impossible: to tell you what a giant we have with us tonight and what an honor we have to have him here and how proud we can be that he has come back here to be with us to support us in what we are doing to try to see to it that we have the Democratic Party we need to win the next election at every level. And for that we say to you, John, we are grateful.
He's going to give you a message tonight that is going to be of enormous value. That's because it's going to speak of the human spirit. He's going to speak of words that were important to me when I was a boy and my dad was in the Congress. He's going to talk about social justice. This is beyond the other meanings. It means that everybody is going to be confident that he or she will be able to be treated decently as they should in a great nation -- in the greatest nation in the world. And to know that they're going to receive the kind of consideration that goes with a citizenship in a body of that kind. We owe this man tremendously for what it is that he has done already. but he is a shining light of leadership now in the time before us And he is going to be one of those who is going to carry this country across a difficult time. The fights that are going on over health care are some of the nastiest and most ungracious and indecent that I hhat I have ever seen. They're full of deceit and dishonesty and dishonor. We need to handle issues of this kind in a greater and more suitable way, one more fitting to the greatest nation in the world. And he'll speak clearly to us about that. He's going to carry us from where we are now, proud of what we've done about the human rights of our people. Proud of what we've done to make this a better country for ourselves, for our kids and, indeed, for ALL of our people regardless of our race, creed or color.
But he's going to talk to us about what I have so many terms heard him talk about. and that is about how we now go forward to do the rest of the things that we must do to see to it that the strengths of this country are grown the way the should by seeing to it that we all have an appreciation that our stake in this country is meaningful and real. And that it does give social justice to all of our people. And how this is good. Not just for those few that have, but rather for all who should have. We are proud, indeed, that John Lewis is with us.
(Pssst! The bald dude on the left is Eclectablog)
And then, finally, Representative Lewis spoke. He spoke for over 20 minutes.
You can listen to the speech and read a full transcript HERE.
Here are some excerpts. Health care as a civil right, not a privilege:
John has already said, he made it plain, that we're in for a difficult fight on the issue of health care before us. Every session of the Congress this man, your Congressperson, has been introducing health legislation, following in the footsteps of his father. He believes, as I believe, that health care is a right and it's not a privilege but a right. And that the quantity and the quality of a person's health care should not be decided by the size of their personal wallet, that person's bank account or the zip code that that person lives in. We're going to pass health care and when we pass it, as Mark stated, John Dingell's name will be all over that bill. It will be a living tribute to him.
On his Republican colleagues:
When I was a young child, I wanted to be a minister. I wanted to preach the Gospel. So, from time to time, with the help of my brothers and sisters and my first cousins, I would get all of our chickens together from the chicken yard like you're gathered here in this room. My brothers and sisters and first cousins would line the outside around the chicken yard. Along with the chickens, my brothers and sisters and first cousins would become part of the congregation, of the audience and I would start preaching.
But when I looked back some of the chickens would bow their heads, some of the chickens would shake their heads, but they never quite said "amen"![laughter]
But I'm convinced that some of those chickens that I preached to in the 40s and the 50s tended to listen to me much better than some of my Republican colleagues listen to us in the Congress today or they listened to me better, I would think, better than Joe Wilson. [applause]
<>I think some of those chickens were probably a little more productive. At least they produced eggs!On the fight ahead over health care reform:
I asked my mother, I asked father, my grandparents, my great grandparents, "Why segregation? Why racial discrimination?" And they would say, "That's the way it is. Don't get in the way, don't get in trouble!" But I was inspired to get in the way, to get in trouble. And it was good trouble and it was necessary trouble. And it's time for the Democratic Party all across America to get in trouble again and help Barack Obama pass health care! We must do it. We MUST do it! [applause] Our party, OUR party, we control the House, we control the Senate, we have the White House. The American people elected us to do something. Now, in the 60s, we didn't have a website. We didn't have a iPod. We didn't have a cellular telephone. We didn't have a fax machine. But we used what we had to bring about a non-violent revolution, a revolution of values, a revolution of ideas. And it's time for us again as a people to mobilize, to organize, and turn people out to vote like we did in '08 and we must do it in 2010. You must send John Dingell back. You must send Mark Schauer back. We must maintain our majority. You know, a lot of this is not about just defeating health care. Part of it is pure politics. They want to give the Democrats a defeat. They want to give President Barack Obama a defeat. And that must not happen on our watch. [applause] This is not a struggle that only lasts for one election or one term of a president. Our struggle is the struggle of a lifetime if that is what it takes to build a more perfect Union. When I spoke at the March on Washington on August 28th, 1963 at the age of 23, I was the youngest speaker. I spoke number six. Dr. King spoke number ten. I remember saying in that speech, "You tell us to wait. You tell us to be patient. We cannot wait, we cannot be patient. We want our freedom and we want it NOW!" That's what we must say about health care: NOW is the time. We must pass health care now. If it were up to John Dingell and John Dingell alone, we would have had single-payer. Right, John? But we've got to come together with our friends, all of our friends, and our friends in the Senate, and send this president the strongest possible health care reform bill. We can do it. Not just for ourselves. But for our children and their children, a generation yet a-born. If we fail to pass it, in my estimation, the American people and history will not be kind to us.
A right, not a privilege. A struggle as important and epic as the fight for civil rights in this country. Three representatives, one voice: health care is a civil right.
I'm just sayin'...
I knew the shoe would eventually drop on this, given it is election time for the Durham city council, wncil, which voted unanimously for a nonbinding resolution to extend civil-marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the Durham Herald-Sun, columnist John McCann goes on a diatribe in support of a local minister who is, well, using the tired bible beating reasons to bounce council members by questioning their faith for voting for the resolution.
Coming to a pulpit near you -- maybe today; the primary election is Tuesday -- pandering politicians, according to Donald Q. Fozard, who shepherds the flock over there at Mount Zion Christian Church.
And if you church folks sit back in your pews and let those City Council candidates get up there and flap their gums and smile real big without checking them on their views about same-sex marriage, then you need to question your Christianity, the pastor put forth.
Back in August, the City Council voted in favor of a nonbinding resolution to extend civil-marriage rights to same-sex couples. The passage prompted a standing ovation at City Hall.
"The city councilmen are just playing political correctness to the gay community," Fozard said.
Well, let's be accurate. It technically wasn't just the men on the City Council who voted for the resolution. The women y'all elected were in on it, too. The vote was unanimous. That means all of 'em approved of the measure.
"From Bill Bell all the way down to Howard Clement," Fozard said. "The people who believe in God should turn them out of office."
By the way, Rev. Fozard is such a moral community leader; this hateful man has been known to repeatedly shout "faggot" from the pulpit. An example of the intellectual capacity as Durham's version of Fred Phelps, from The Independent Weekly:
From this past Sunday's sermon, one would think the Rev. Donald Q. Fozard Sr. likes saying the word faggot. The pastor of Durham's Mount Zion Christian Church hollers the word's last syllable as if he were exorcising a demon, or as if he were a movie star who understands that notoriety rises when you do something incendiary.
"Faggots across the nation, heading churches. Homos on the pianos. Faggots in the choir. What kind of spirit is leading that church?" he asked his 150 worshippers.The 26-year veteran of Mount Zion, who is known in Durham for preaching through a loud speaker mounted on a white van, has a boxer's build, bloodshot eyes and wears a white smock adorned with 13 gold buttons. He speaks in an intimidating tone, which is amplified by a microphone and echo machine.
...Then Fozard continued with his own spectacular show. "And now? Men with men, women with women? Let me remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah. That sin will bring fire from heaven. I tell the homosexual man: repent, turn and get a woman. I tell the woman who wants to get married: get yourself a man."
(If Fozard stresses theses the last syllable of "faggot," he sounds out each vowel and consonant of "homosexual".) "The Reverend Al Sharpton says it doesn't matter who you sleep with?" he said. "I'll tell you one thing: the Reverend ain't no Reverend. All of them are running around saying it doesn't matter who you sleep with! They want that little 1 percent of faggots that go to vote."
Nice to see McCann endorsing the views of someone so, um, well, rational.
Really, I'm glad all of this nonsense surfaced, if only to prove that that the message I delivered in my NC Pride keynote address was sorely needed here -- we have to challenge the use of religion to hinder progress on civil equality, particularly when these homobigoted pastors in the community try to lay claim to the believe that there is only one view on LGBT rights in the faith community -- their own.
The homophobia in the black church has to be called out, particularly by those in religious communities that are open and affirming. We need more of this. Many, many of areas LGBT-supportive showed up at Pride, marching in the parade and with booths on display. Their interpretation of the bible clearly doesn't match Fozard's or McCanns -- nor should it have to. It's precisely why we have separation of church and state. Religious beliefs have no place in civil law.
More below the fold.McCann actually thinks Fozard, who lives in a house not far from mine that has a life-size white statue of a man and woman in an embrace on his front lawn to signify one-man, one-woman marriage, and has the 10 Commandments erected on the front gate of his driveway, has sound logic going on. That's mind-blowing:
Now, according to the way the elected folks do math up there on the state level, 1 man + 1 woman = a marriage. The resolution City Council members agreed on amounts to veiled pressure to change state law. Politicians in Chapel Hill and Carrboro have passed same-sex resolutions and are up to the same thing.
At the very least, appreciate Fozard's logic: Let's say there are three islands. One has 25 couples of gay men. Another has 25 lesbian couples. And the other one has 25 heterosexual couples. "A hundred years from now, which island will survive? Which island will still produce people?" Fozard asked.
Uh, what does this fantasy hypothetical have anything to do with reality? If he wants to take a look at some actual statistics that are meaningful to family values, he needs only to look to any of the states and countries were marriage equality exists, and divorce rates, for instance. Massachusetts has the lowest, while the states in the South have the highest instance of divorce. What does that say about values?
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Herald-Sun to address this lame, but I'm sure credible-in-some circles attack on members of the City Council who voted to do the right thing. As I said in my speech I want to ask people like McCann and Fozard -- and others who feel the same way -- a couple of questions.
1) Do they realize that unless a couple has obtained a marriage license issued by the state, a religious marriage means nothing in the eyes of the law; and
2) Do they not believe in the separation of church and state in this matter? If so, they are effectively asking the state not only to ban same-sex marriage based on a specific religious belief, they are also asking that the state discriminate against the churches and denominations that DO want to marry same-sex couples, and as I mentioned, ma ny of them were present at Pride. That's unconstitutional religious discrimination.
Certainly "I don't like it" isn't an argument that legally flies, either. As we know all too well, racism still exists, even though institutionalized discrimination is no longer legal. No one expects homophobia to be swept away, but the law should ban it as a legitimate reason to discriminate.
That column, Mr. McCann, was an embarrassment.
You know, it's interesting that the Fozard is throwing any stones at the LGBT community considering the lurid trial that is going on regarding a closeted anti-gay black pastor accused of slaying a young woman because he was jealous of the fact that she was sleeping with his male roommate -- that he had sexual designs on and had propositioned with an offer of free rent for orar oral sex.
Thank you, Durham City Council...
No comments:
Post a Comment