The Hysteria Mounts

The Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock has really hit the anti-gay hate groups and hate-group wannabes hard. They're just beside themselves. This, from the ever hateful Tony Perkins, is perhaps more revealing than he intended:

To most Americans, the sellout of Neil Gorsuch, who not only voted with the liberal members on the Harris case but authored the majority opinion, will be the lingering horror. If even he can’t bring himself to agree that the word “sex” means male and female — not the Left’s wild reinterpretations of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” who will?

To label Justice Gorsuch a "sellout" just fairly screams "We didn't put you on the Court to rule on the basis of reality!" I like the bit about the ruling being a "lingering horror", too. They're really pulling out the stops.

And The Federalist is even more over the top:

Joy Pullmann, executive editor at The Federalist, wrote that the ruling would result in the “further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require.” The headline on Pullmann’s article claims that Monday’s ruling “Firebombs” the U.S. Constitution. She writes:

This decision is a disgrace to these bedrocks of Western civilization, our nation built upon them, the voters who vote for them, and to these men’s honor. President Trump ran promising judges who wouldn’t murder America, and Gorsuch just gave him and everyone who voted for him a giant middle finger. The court’s newfound weakness will also be exploited and explored by leftist legal agitators whose goal is the destruction of the American system.

Now, Ms. Pullman, we all know who's out to destroy the American system, and it's not Neil Gorsuch or his colleagues on the Court -- it's your hero's puppet master, who's sitting in the Kremlin laughing himself silly.

Even James Dobson has come out of his crypt to rant (yes, apparently he's still alive):

Not only was this decision an affront against God, but it was also a historical attack against the founding framework that governs our nation.

Our judiciary is constitutionally charged with interpreting the law, not making law. In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court acted as a super-legislature and failed to carry out its primary duty to the American people. And we will all pay the price.

Oh, and about the judiciary interpreting the law: that's exactly what they did.

And from our "president":

“They’ve ruled and we live with the decision,” Trump said, defeated and somewhat sad. “We live with the decision of the Supreme Court.”

I guess someone told him he can't fire Gorsuch. And note the enthusiasm. (My own take is that he doesn't care one way or the other about LGBT rights -- he just needs to keep the evangelicals feeding at the trough.)

And in spite of the right, time marches on, and society marches with it.

Today's Must-Read: Color Me Flabbergasted (Updated)

Well, OK, maybe not flabbergasted, but certainly surprised. It's all over the place, but here's the most concise and complete single story I've found:

In the cascade of bad news that has marked 2020, it’s almost impossible to believe that something good could happen, and yet here we are: On Monday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that gay and trans workers are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits firing someone on the basis of sex. The decision encompasses a number of cases, but the most prominent was that of Aimee Stephens, a trans woman from Michigan who was fired by her longtime employer, Harris Funeral Homes, because she had transitioned from living as a man to living as a woman. Sadly, Stephens did not live to see this victory — she died from kidney failure in May — but she will go down in history as the person who secured this critical right for trans people to do their jobs free of discrimination.

I wasn't really all that surprised by the ruling -- well, OK, a little bit -- but more by the 6-3 split.l If I'd thought about it, I probably would have expected Roberts to join the liberal wing of the Court -- legacy and all that -- but Gorsuch did surprise me.

The really delicious part is that the "religious" right was hoping this case would provide the wedge to start rolling back gay and trans equality -- and everyone else's rights as well:

But this victory is not just a victory for trans people. This decision, surprisingly penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, is a potentially major setback for the religious right’s push to gut federal laws that protect all Americans from discrimination on the basis of race or sex. The right has been looking for a way to weaken the Civil Rights Act for decades now, and for the moment that mission has been thwarted.

Especially those of women:

Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian right group that was representing Harris Funeral Home, is still pretending it was doing this to protect women.

“Redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’ will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women’s shelters, and many other contexts,” the group tweeted after the decision came down. “Civil rights laws that use the word ‘sex’ were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women.”

BS, to put is succinctly. You know as well as I do that ADF and its backers want women back in the kitchen with a kid hanging on each hip.

At any rate, read the whole thing, and while you're at it, check out the Salon article linked in the first paragraph above.

There's a lot of follow up, especially at Joe.My.God. Highlights are here (Tony Perkins -- not the sexy actor, the bigoted grifter); here (Joe Biden, on the plus side); h ere (Alliance Defending Freedom, the losers); and here (Heritage Foundation, bravely facing the eleventh century). There are more -- just scroll down until you find one you like.

Update: Needless to say, Franklin Graham has weighed in, with the expected wailing and rending of garments over "religious freedom":

I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country. People of sincere faith who stand on God’s Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs.

And so on and so forth.

As a matter of fact, the Court quite specifically did not address the issue. The demurrer is on page 36 of the opinion (which a PDF file that I can't copy and paste).

Graham's comments are worth reading, just as an example in the double-talk at which the "religious" right excels.

LGBT News Wrap-Up (Update)

With thanks to Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters, who did most of the work for me.

Now, about that carefully thought out and fully studied trans ban: It seems that there are a lot of unanswered questions:

The top congressional Democrats on defense issues are seeking answers from Defense Secretary James Mattis on his recommendations to President Trump against allowing transgender people in the military, which seemed to be based on junk science and were used by the administration to reaffirm its ban on their service.

In a joint letter to Mattis dated April 11, the quartet of Democrats say they were “surprised and disappointed” by Mattis’ conclusions against transgender service, which the White House made public late last month in an announcement renewing Trump’s ban.

“In our view, these recommendations contradict previous findings from the Department of Defense and the professional medical community,” the letter says. “As the president has empowered you to implement appropriate policies governing service by transgender individuals, we feel it imperative that we explore the factual bases behind your recommendations.”

The letter is signed by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee; Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee; Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). Both Speier and Gillibrand introduced bills in their respective chambers of Congress against Trump’s transgender military ban, but those measures also sought to codify Mattis’ review before it was completed.

There's more, including the questions that no one seems to be able to answer.

It's especially weird considering that the top officials in the Army aren't aware of any problems:

During congressional testimony Thursday, the Army’s top officials explained that they have no knowledge of the unit cohesion concerns expressed in a report justifying President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Army Secretary Mark Esper and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley both said as much under questioning from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Esper, who said back in February that soldiers aren’t concerned about transgender service, reiterated, “Nothing has percolated up to my level.” When Gillibrand asked Milley if transgender troops have caused any issues with unit cohesion, he confirmed, “No. Not at all.”

Update: I almost forgot this choice bit of news:

A federal judge ruled that the trans military ban cannot be implemented and that transgender people are a “protected class.”

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman of the Western District of Washington in Karnoski v. Trump refused to lift the injunction against implementing the trans military ban, which means that while the court examines it, the Trump Administration cannot implement it. . . .

While the Trump Administration attempted to argue that its March 2018 memo “revoked” the 2017 trans military ban, Perchman wrote that it was just a set of more detailed guidelines about how to implement the same ban that Trump tweeted about last year.

This is important because the Trump Administration had to prove that there was a real government interest in banning transgender people from the military, something that there obviously wasn’t because Trump didn’t even hold any hearings or read any research about trans people in the military before he tweeted the ban.

The gossip is that the "panel of experts" consulted were Mike Pence and Tony Perkins. OK, it's really that Perkins wrote the ban.

Do we really want this as our top diplomat?

On Thursday, Mike Pompeo, Trump's nominee for Secretary of State, answered questions in front of a Senate committee. Pompeo has a lot to answer for regarding his past Islamophobic statements and alliances as well as his anti-LGBTQ record. Naturally, this means that those on the right, particularly the religious right, support him. They claim that he will stand up for "religious liberty."

Pompeo's record is in direct contradiction of American policy regarding LGBT issues -- which the Trump regime has started dismantling. Needless to say, Tony Perkins adores him. And it's not just Perkins who's coming down on the side of "religious freedom" [sic].

Corporate America seems to get it when our government (at least under the present regime) can't.

I guess it's time for One Million Moms (minus 960,000 -- um, that's their mailing list, not their active membership) to start rending garments and clutching pearls.

And this is going viral. Thought-provoking.

Maybe I live in a different world, but where I live -- the North Side of Chicago -- no one thinks twice about two guys or two gals holding hands. And it's not just in "our" neighborhoods -- it's places like Uptown and Lincoln Park Zoo, as well.

So Who's More Backward?

This article stopped me on this morning's browsing:

A Muslim country is about the last place you’d expect to be at the forefront of transgender rights. Yet Pakistan has been taking steps to recognize its transgender citizens that would be considered far too radical for a supposedly tolerant nation like the U.S.

Pakistan’s latest move is especially bold: sending transgender youth to serve as volunteers for this year’s Hajj, the annual trek to Mecca, Islam’s holiest site. The decision is a de facto challenge to conservative Muslims who vociferously oppose any form of LGBT rights.

In fact, the decision by Pakistan is just the latest in a line that undermines widely held notions about Muslim attitudes toward transgender people. As an added sign of just how far advanced Pakistan is relative to the U.S., the Hajj volunteers are being drawn from the Pakistani equivalent of the Boy Scouts. Some 40 transgender Scouts took their oath to the organization last week.

We're still fighting over who gets to pee where.

The article cites a couple of other countries that have, by our standards, very advanced policies in place regarding their transgender citizens: India and Nepal.

Just on a wild guess, I'd say it has a lot to do with their cultural histories, but I don't know enough to make a definitive statement. I do know that, given the age of the civilizations of these countries, Islam is a late add-on, in the case of Pakistan; Hinduism doesn't have the same attitude about non-binary identities as the desert religions. In America, Christianity came with the first settlers. (It's worth noting here how Americans magnified some of the less admirable qualities of European culture; for example, the male dominance so prevalent in Europe was largely show. In fact, psychologists call it "mythical male dominance": women not only had their own spheres of authority, but had a fairly substantial amount of behind-the-scenes input into decisions made by men. In America, this mythical dominance became real.) Given the spatial dislocation of the early settlers, and in some cases the conscious rejection of the culture they had left*, it's not really very surprising that America is, socially, backward, especially in areas having to do with sex and sexuality.

At any rate, this is a pretty good take on where we rank in terms of dealing with our trans citizens -- nowhere near the top.

* Think about the Puritans, who by all reports were fairly awful people; sadly, they've been idealized as part of the American mythos, with a concomitant effect on our cultural attitudes.

Snap! Or Is That "Slap!"

Another judge has stopped Trump's military trans ban, cold. And he wasn't gentle about it:

A federal judge has entirely halted President Donald Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, and called the Commander-in-Chief's tweets announcing the total ban in July "capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified." Trump this past summer sought to bar any new transgender recruits from entering the military and discharge all openly-transgender service members.

The cherry on top:

"President Trump’s tweets did not emerge from a policy review, nor did the Presidential Memorandum identify any policymaking process or evidence demonstrating that the revocation of transgender rights was necessary for any legitimate national interest," Judge Garbis wrote in his decision "Based on the circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement and the departure from normal procedure, the Court agrees with the D.C. Court that there is sufficient support for Plaintiffs’ claims that 'the decision to exclude transgender individuals was not driven by genuine concerns regarding military efficacy.'" . . . .

"An unexpected announcement by the President and Commander in Chief of the United States via Twitter that 'the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military' certainly can be considered shocking under the circumstances," the decision continued.

Happy Thanksgiving, asshole.

Waiting for outraged statement from Tony Perkins about "lawless judges" in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . .

Because we all know this "policy" was a sop to the anti-LGBT "Christians" in the base.

For all you legal geeks, the decision is here. It's very closely reasoned and very precise.

Let's Not Get All Excited

No, Secretary of Defense James Mattis has not frozen Trump's military transgender ban as reported by USA Today and WaPo:

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced Tuesday that he is freezing the implementation of President Trump’s ban on transgender people serving in the military, saying that he will first establish a panel of experts to provide advice and recommendations on how to carry out Trump’s directive.

The Pentagon confirmed the move in a statement attributed to Mattis, saying that he will first develop a study and implementation plan “as directed” by the president in a memorandum released Friday. Soon-to-be arriving political appointees at the Defense Department “will play an important role in this effort,” Mattis added. The plan will address both the potential for transgender people looking to serve in the military for the first time and transgender troops who already are serving.

Almost everyone is jumping all over this as an indication of --what? Rebellion in the Pentagon?

Not so fast: Mattis is just laying out the procedure for implementing Trump's policy:

This framing is an extreme mischaracterization of the facts. Mattis did not “freeze” the trans ban, and he is not “buy[ing] time” in some potentially insubordinate effort to buck Trump. In reality, the secretary is doing exactly what Trump directed him to do in a recent memo.

The ban doesn't take effect until March 23, 2018, after the "relevant studies" have been conducted. The fact that the military studied this issue for two years before Obama instituted the open service policy for trans service members seems to have gotten lost in the excitement. Oh, wait -- that was under Obama, and Trump is doing his best, along with the Republicans in Congress, to erase the memory of Obama completely.

Rumor has it that we can think Tony Perkins for the ban. Why am I not surprised? Since he's lost on equal marriage and equal rights for gays and lesbians, I guess he has to find a new vulnerable group to persecute. Unless he gets Trump to rescind open service by lesbian and gay service members.

Boom! And Again, Boom!

So of course Trump is getting sued over the transgender ban.

Twice.

Today in Business as Usual (Update)

So, to no one's surprise, Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio. (And what kind of name is that? Doesn't sound American to me.) The responses haven't been kind, as you can see at the link, but I like Maxine Waters' reaction:

I'm not surprised Trump pardoned racial profiler Arpaio. White Nationalists, KKK, & Duke celebrated Trump's election b/c he is one of them!

— Maxine Waters (@RepMaxineWaters) August 26, 2017

She's absolutely right -- Trump's white supremacist sympathies (which, with the eager cooperation of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, he's making official government policy) and racism are well documented. This is just one more example to add to the list.upd

Update: Digby has a post of tweets from Arizona New Times documenting some of Arpaio's history. It's pretty appalling.

And as if that weren't enough, Macho Man actually signed a memo on "Military Service by Transgender Individuals" -- his sop to the anti-LGBT hate groups, who love him. (Please don't tell me it's because they think he's one of them -- they know better. But he's useful.)

An example of the bullshit that forms the basis of his "policy":

In my judgment, the previous Administration failed to identify a sufficient basis to conclude that terminating the Departments' longstanding policy and practice would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources, and there remain meaningful concerns that further study is needed to ensure that continued implementation of last year's policy change would not have those negative effects.

As the article points out, this is just rehash of Elaine Donnelley's "arguments" against repeal of DADT. (Remember Elaine Donnelley? The only person ever to be laughed at while testifying before a congressional committee.) The rest is portentous boilerplate.

OutServe-SLDN and Lambda Legal are preparing to sue.

Note: this all happened Friday evening, the traditional time for presidents to pull shit they don't want anyone to notice. And it's just icing on the cake that Harvey was dominating the news.

More Pushback

Against Trump's trans ban in the military, and against the "Christian" right's war against gays:

American voters say 68 - 27 percent, including 55 - 39 percent among voters in military households, that transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Republicans opposed transgender service 60 - 32 percent, but every other party, gender, education, age or racial group supports transgender service by margins of 22 percentage points or higher, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds.

By an 89 - 8 percent margin, American voters say it should be illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on sexual orientation.

More acceptance of transgender people would be "a good thing for the country," 46 percent of voters say, as 14 percent say it would be "a bad thing" and 39 percent say it would not make much difference. . . .

"They put on uniforms and face the same risks as their brothers and sisters in arms for little reward other than protecting their country," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Voters say a soldier is a soldier, no matter what his/her gender identity is.

"Voters say, 'Let them serve.'

Go ahead -- click through and read what voters think about the way health care is being handled. Whoa!

Via Joe.My.God.

Pushback

Apparently I'm not the only one who was infuriated by Trump's "policy statement" via tweet about transgender servicemembers. There've been more negative reactions in addition to the ones I reported the other day.

First, Americans at large (via Joe.My.God.):

A majority of Americans believe that transgender individuals should be allowed to serve in the military, according to an exclusive Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday.

The July 26-28 poll suggested that the country largely disagrees with President Donald Trump’s announcement this week that he will ban transgender personnel from the armed forces.

When asked to weigh in on the debate, 58 percent of adults agreed with the statement, “Transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military.” Twenty-seven percent said they should not while the rest answered “don’t know.”

From a group of Senators. From WaPo via Joe.My.God.:

A bloc of 45 U.S. senators is asking the Pentagon not to discharge any transgender service members until the Defense Department completes an ongoing review of whether they should be able to continue serving in uniform. The letter holds no legal sway over the Pentagon and lawmakers cannot stop President Trump from carrying out his stated intention to ban transgender people from serving in uniform, but the letter puts almost half of the U.S. Senate on record as opposing the surprise announcement.

And a group of state attorneys general, who want Congress to cut Trump off at the knees (not that that will ever happen):

The top legal officers in 18 states and the District of Columbia have asked Congress to pass legislation prohibiting discrimination against transgender service members.

Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin sent the letter dated Thursday in response to President Donald Trump’s announcement, via Twitter a day earlier, that he would ban transgender people in the military.

The letter asks the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees to reaffirm in legislation that transgender people may not be banned from serving in the military. It urges lawmakers to include transgender protections in the National Defense Authorization Act. Eighteen other attorneys general, who like Chin are all Democrats, also signed the document.

(Sidebar: Yes, Lisa Madigan, Illinois' AG, signed. And both of Illinois' senators signed the letter from Kirsten Gillibrand noted above. Just so you know.)

And it looks like Trump may have made some positions in his administration harder to fill:

A former executive director of the Delaware Republican party has notified the Dept. of Homeland Security that he is withdrawing his name from consideration for a senior position in direct response to President Trump's announced ban on military service members who are transgender. John Fluharty had been interviewing to be DHS's assistant secretary of partnership and engagement.

“As I mentioned in our conversation, I am a strong advocate for diversity, both in the Republican Party and in government,” Fluharty wrote in an email to DHS, as Politico reports. “The President’s announcement this morning — that he will ban all of those who identify as transgender from military service — runs counter to my deeply held beliefs, and it would be impossible for me to commit to serving the Administration knowing that I would be working against those values.”

And just a note, in case I haven't mentioned it before: you don't get support from your generals if you don't keep them in the loop:

Top military leaders, including Joint Chiefs chair, didn't know ban on transgender service members was coming https://t.co/50bZm3lFBD pic.twitter.com/JgsgftKG0G

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) July 27, 2017

Late Thursday morning Reuters broke a story quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who said in a memo that there will be no changes to U.S. policy on transgender service members until he receives explicit direction from the Commander-in-Chief.

Also late Thursday morning, USA TODAY reported Vice Admiral Robert Burke, the Chief of Naval Personnel, sent an email stating transgender service members can continue on as usual, at least for now.

USA TODAY obtained the email and reports the "Navy will not immediately discharge transgender sailors and will continue to provide them with medical treatment despite the tweets fired off by President Trump on Wednesday."

Way to go, Donnie.

Footnote: Interesting article in Air Force Times about some of the serving transgender personnel. Worth reading.

Sickening: Update

Looks as though the Hairpiece's new anti-trans policy is not getting a lot of support. It's not only the usual suspects who are condemning it, but he's getting brickbats from the likes of John McCain:

Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving. There is no reason to force service members who are ready to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military – regardless of their gender identity.

Orrin Hatch:

I don’t think anybody should be discriminating against anyone. Transgender people are people, and deserve the best we can do for them.

Joni Ernst:

She believes what is most important is making sure servicemembers can meet the physical training standards, and the willingness to defend our freedoms and way of life,” the spokeswoman said. “Americans who are qualified and can meet the standards to serve in the military should be afforded that opportunity.

Log Cabin:

This smacks of politics, pure and simple. The United States military already includes transgender individuals who protect our freedom day in and day out. Excommunicating transgender soldiers only weakens our readiness; it doesn’t strengthen it.

Even Caitlyn Jenner has made a statement condemning the policy.

There are 15,000 patriotic transgender Americans in the US military fighting for all of us. What happened to your promise to fight for them? https://t.co/WzjypVC8Sr

— Caitlyn Jenner (@Caitlyn_Jenner) July 26, 2017

But, Trump is getting support from Matt Barber.

Addendum:

Add a little irony to the mix -- an anniversary: 69 years ago.

Digby's comment: "Trump and his voters would like to reverse that too, I'm sure."

Yeah, Right

I'll believe this when I see it happening:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has countered concerns from civil rights groups and fellow lawmakers, vowing to aggressively pursue hate crimes against transgender victims.

In 2010, Sessions voted against a law that expanded federal hate crimes protections to sexual orientation, arguing that there was insufficient evidence that local prosecutors were failing to pursue such cases.

Speaking at a Justice Department hate crimes summit in Washington yesterday, Sessions said “we have a responsibility to protect people’s freedom, their religious rights, their integrity, their ability to express themselves, to push back against violence and hate crimes that occur in our country.”

He note specifically the duty to “enforce hate crime laws aggressively and appropriately where transgendered individuals are victims.”

Most of what we're getting from this regime is mixed signals. I'm taking Sessions' statement with a large helping of salt, particularly since Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, has rolled back LGBT, and specifically transgender, protections -- although there was apparently some pressure on that from -- Jeff Sessions.

Like I say, we'll see what actually happens.

Today's Must-Read: Doing It Right

An illuminating article on parents dealing with a transgender child and doing the right thing -- and working very hard to figure out what that is:

It was early still, not much past 6 a.m., and James Kaplan was already dressed for the first day of third grade. The night before, his mom, Sara, pulled out the iron and he helped press the wrinkles out of his light blue polo. “My first time ironing,” he said. For the past month, he’d been pushing his parents to let him wear a suit to school. James, whose ninth birthday was a couple of months away, thought it was a sharp look.

But after some back and forth, they’d settled on the polo, khaki cargo shorts and the dark blue chambray tie that Sara was now fitting over his head. Charley, James’ 4-year-old brother, still in his pajamas, pointed at him. “Handsome, James. Handsome.” James collapsed on the couch, staring through the windows at the brightening September sky.

“How you feelin’?” James’ dad, Ben, called from the kitchen. “Nervous,” James said. “But excited.”

He wasn’t just thinking about his first day of third grade. He was thinking about the beginning of his first full school year as James.

Some eight months before, James had told his parents his “inner person was a boy.” The round-cheeked 8-year-old they’d always thought was their daughter was actually their son. It was something he’d been trying to tell them — something he’d been trying to understand for himself — for more than a year.

Sara and Ben considered themselves progressive, but they didn’t know the first thing about raising a transgender child. In the days that followed, they would talk to family, to friends and to their couples therapist. They would take James shopping for “boy clothes” and to get a “boy haircut.”

They had to get to know their first-born all over again. They loved him as they always had, but there was this sense that maybe they didn’t really know him. And, if they were being honest, he was different — lighter and smiling and more open.

The article goes into some depth, but it's a fascinating read. Do it.

Today in Disgusting People

Actually, it's not an individual, it's an institution.

It may come as no surprise that I have no respect for the Roman Catholic Church or its hierarchy -- quite aside from my thoughts on Christianity in general, which are mixed. And frankly, I had hopes for Francis' call to re-orient the Church's mission away from persecuting minorities and back to those basic Christian teachings -- you know, things like sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry, things that the movers and shakers among the hierarchy can't be bothered with.

Sadly,the Church is falling back into old patterns, with Francis at the head:

The supposedly “moderate” Pope Francis was recently quoted in a meeting with Polish bishops as saying, “Today, in schools they are teaching this to children – to children! – that everyone can choose their gender… We are living a moment of annihilation of man as image of God.” He accused Western countries that tolerate transgender people of “ideological colonizing,” stating: “One such colonization, I'll say it clearly with its first and last name – is gender.”

He repeated these claims about “indoctrination” and “ideological colonization,” when speaking to reporters this week. He attacks schools which accept transgender youth describing the "'nasty' tendency of schools to 'indoctrinate' children with the idea that their gender is something that can be picked and chosen and changed."

Other high level Catholic officials have also made recent statements that leave no doubt that the Church has decided transgender people, and acceptance of them, are some of the most dangerous evils on the face of the Earth. Pope Francis previously stated that transgender people are a “threat to the order of creation,” and compared danger of transgender people to nuclear weapons, stating: “Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings. Let’s think also of… of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

This is all the expected follow-up to the pope's somewhat incoherent rants against "gender ideology," whatever that is, and, given the Church's fixation on morality as a function of genitals, it's not really a surprise. It is, however, somewhat disheartening to see the hierarchy once again institutionalizing ignorance -- it's quite clear that the pope and the bishops have no clue as to what trans folk are about. ("Disheartening" because the Roman Catholic Church quite easily accepted the theory of evolution, after performing the necessary theological cartwheels.)

Aside from the sheer viciousness of the rhetoric, the irony is of staggering proportions: "ideological colonization" is a nice succinct summary of the history of the Catholic Church. It's a phenomenon not readily apparent in the West -- Europe and North America, where governments and cultures in general are more secular -- but it's a very dangerous trend in Africa and the Catholic portions of Asia. The Church has a long, dirty history of selling social outcasts -- the very people it should be trying to protect, according to its own teachings -- down the river. (Another screaming irony: African clergy maintaining that homosexuality and gender fluidity are "not African" while clinging desperately to the worst and most ignorant aspects of Colonial rule -- and nothing could be less African than the Christian churches and their teachings on sexuality. Anyone with the slightest reading knowledge of anthropology understands that most "primitive" societies had a much more accurate and realistic understanding of sexuality and its variations than the "enlightened" Christian Europeans who were determined to obliterate their cultures.)

Read the whole article. It's infuriating, but at least it's not Trump.

Here We Go Again

You may have heard that Matt Bomer was cast as a transgender woman in the film Anything.

As you can imagine, the trans community -- or at least, a vocal segment of it -- is up in arms. On social media, of course, because that way you don't actually have to think about what you're saying. This is one of the least hostile tweets:

Jamie Clayton Verified account ‏@MsJamieClayton

Jamie Clayton Retweeted Trans Hollywood

I really hope you both choose to do some actual good for the trans community one day. @MRodOfficial @MattBomer

Trans Hollywood @transhollywood

Making movies with transgender protagonists is not, on its own, progress. https://medium.com/@emilymaxima/making-movies-with-transgender-protagonists-is-not-on-its-own-progress-70ffe27c3086#.rbi203eop …

• Retweets 652
• Likes 803
• 

5:19 PM - 29 Aug 2016

652 retweets 803 likes

Bomer blocked her on Twitter, temporarily (apparently, he has now unblocked her). I would too -- this is the kind of condescending crap he doesn't need to put up with. Bomer, as a matter of fact, has been a strong supporter of trans rights, which makes Clayton's tweet even more offensive.

The idea that trans characters must be played by trans actors is, on its face, ludicrous. These are actors. They make their living pretending to be someone else and if they make us believe they are that other person, we consider them good actors. As for what considerations go into casting a role, I've been there: you're looking for the actor who is a fit for the character. You're not thinking of the actor's real-life sexual orientation or gender identity -- those are irrelevant; you're looking for the actor who is capable of moving into this character and making the character real. When I was in college I was routinely cast as old men; I was skinny, had an angular face that would take age makeup well, and I could move the way an old man moves. I was nineteen or twenty. Hollywood has the added burden of name recognition: they have to have something to draw the audience, and casting a high-profile actor is one of those somethings.

But back to the core complaint: visibility of trans people. The fact that the film is being made at all, or that other films with trans characters have been made and been successful, seems to elude this group. They're not registering on what this actually means. I realize that at this stage of the game, when the trans community is coming under attack from the "Christian" right (now that gays and lesbians are pretty much mainstream), they want real trans people to be more visible. But this set of circumstances shows us that we're dealing with a two-pronged issue: resistance and inertia.

When I was a kid -- and I knew from a very early age that I liked boys -- there's wasn't even such a thing as a "gay man." There were only "queers," who were shady, diseased, and dangerous, and universally despised. You never saw gay characters on TV and seldom in films, and when you did, they fit the stereotype: sick, pathetic, and just barely people. I was hungry enough for any representation of people like me that even that was a plus: at least we existed. It took fifty years, but that's changed a lot. And it was the same process: overcoming first inertia, and then overcoming resistance.

And I have to say, these representations of trans characters are a lot more sympathetic than the early representations of gay characters in film. I can't stress how important that is: it means that the inertia of the status quo -- the stereotypes -- is already a thing of the past. So in that regard, Trans Hollywood's tweet is flat out wrong.

So, however much you may hate it, changing people's perceptions of marginalized groups takes time. It means you have to overcome the inertia of the status quo and the resistance of those who need someone to hate to justify their own existence. Having a very public snit because it's not happening the way you think it should doesn't help -- in fact, it's as likely to damage your cause as anything else, because you've shown yourself to be immature and not ready for prime time.

When we have trans actors and actresses playing cis characters in major motion pictures, then we're there.

Well, It's Done

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter this afternoon announced that “effective immediately,” the ban on openly transgender service members in the military has come to an end:

“The Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible in order to remain what we are now — the finest fighting force the world has ever known,” Carter said Thursday at the Pentagon.

“We don’t want barriers unrelated to a person’s qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman or marine who can best accomplish the mission. We have to have access to 100% of America’s population,” he added.

“Although relatively few in number, we’re talking about talented and trained Americans who are serving their country with honor and distinction,” he said. “We want to take the opportunity to retain people whose talent we’ve invested in and who’ve proven themselves.”

As you may imagine, this is not being greeted with glad cries across the political spectrum:

"This is the latest example of the Pentagon and the President prioritizing politics over policy," said [Rep. MaCc] Thornberry [(R-TX -- of course)], Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

"Our military readiness -- and hence, our national security -- is dependent on our troops being medically ready and deployable," he added. "The administration seems unwilling or unable to assure the Congress and the American people that transgender individuals will meet these individual readiness requirements at a time when our Armed Forces are deployed around the world."

We're talking about 11,000 people out of a million and a half.

And of course, the World's Biggest Liar weighs in:

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine Corps veteran, said President Barack Obama was using the military "to fight culture wars."

"This is yet another example of President Obama using America's military to fight culture wars instead of to fight real wars against the enemies of our nation," Perkins said.

"Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that 'the only military matter . . . about which I ever sensed deep passion on [Obama's] part was 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Now Mr. Obama has only added to his legacy of misplaced priorities with regard to our country's defense," Perkins added.

And if anyone's an expert on misplaced priorities, it's Tony Perkins. (Hmm -- I thought the biggest threat to our country was same-sex marriage.)

CNN, of course, fails to mention that the Family Research Council is a recognized anti-LGBT hate group. And I've read that Perkins' military service was as an MP. Somehow, that fits.

A little guessing game: which member of the teabagger caucus will be the first to introduce a "military bathroom bill"?

Well, It Took A While

But it does: the Armed Forces are very thorough:

The Pentagon plans to announce the repeal of its ban on transgender service members July 1, a controversial decision that would end nearly a year of internal wrangling among the services on how to allow those troops to serve openly, according to Defense officials.

Top personnel officials plan to meet as early as Monday to finalize details of the plan, and Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work could sign off on it by Wednesday, according to a Defense official familiar with the timetable but who spoke on condition of anonymity because officials were not authorized to speak publicly about it. Final approval would come from Defense Secretary Ash Carter, and the announcement will be on the eve of the Fourth of July weekend.

The plan would direct each branch of the armed services over a one-year period to implement new policies affecting recruiting, housing and uniforms for transgender troops, one official said.

And as usual, there's a Republican congressman from Texas bitching and moaning about it:

“If reports are correct, I believe Secretary Carter has put the political agenda of a departing administration ahead of the military’s readiness crisis," Thornberry said. "The force is exhausted from back to back deployments and spending their home-station time scrambling to get enough equipment and training before they deploy again. My focus is on helping the troops now — to be the most effective, deployable force possible.

Back to back deployments because we've had to extricate ourselves from the mess the last Republican administration left in the Middle East.

"In particular, there are readiness challenges that first must be addressed, such as the extent to which such individuals would be medically non-deployable. . . ."

There are an estimate 2,500 transgender enlisted personnel. That's obviously going to have a huge impact on the readiness of a military force that numbers just over 1.3 million enlisted personnel, plus another 800,000 plus in the reserves.

But back to the main topic. I can't help but wonder how much of that "internal wrangling" was obstructionism. I do have to hand it to the Pentagon, though: once DADT was repealed and the necessity was plain, they've really focused on making open service work.

And in related news:

Navy Department officials are urging the thousands of sailors and Marines forced out of the military because of their sexuality in previous decades to come forward and appeal their discharge — in a step to restore benefits and right a historical wrong.

The Board for Correction of Naval Records can overturn a wide range of records, from counseling letters to detachments for cause, but recently they have been putting the word out to veterans who were separated because of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — and its previous across-the-board ban — that they can have their discharges upgraded and their reenlistment codes or reason codes changed to reflect a post-DADT world.

Both via Joe.My.God.

Meanwhile, In the Civilized World

First up, Massachusetts just passed a trans rights bill, which the Republican governor has said he'll sign:

Freedom for All USA ‎@freedom4allusa
 

By a vote of 116-36, #Massachusetts House passes FULL #transgender protections in public spaces! http://bit.ly/25yJMPh  #TransBillMA

4:59 PM - 1 Jun 2016

Note the vote total.

Footnote: Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) is backing away from the T. rex of bathroom bills has fast as he can, using the McCrory defense:

Burr, for his part, says the city of Charlotte needs to take responsibility for the role he believes it played in provoking Republicans to act.

“I think the legislature should go back and look at what they did, talk with Charlotte and figure out, as it relates to bathroom issue, there can be resolution. There didn’t seem to be a problem before. Charlotte created the problem and the General Assembly further created a problem,” he told WTVD.

"Shame on you for making me hit you!"

And north of the Border:

The Pride flag flew on Parliament Hill on Wednesday in a historic all-party show of support to mark the start of the month celebrating Canada's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had the honour of raising the distinctive rainbow banner on the Hill for the first time at a celebration attended by MPs from all federal parties, as well as dozens of onlookers.

Can you imagine if Obama had done that? I mean, look at the reaction from painting a rainbow on the White House with lights.

And, because a little eyecandy never hurts, here's Justin Trudeau:

Meanwhile, back in the good ol' US of A:

On Tuesday afternoon President Barack Obama issued his eighth and final proclamation declaring June LGBT Pride Month. By Tuesday evening some conservatives were outraged, taking to social media and voicing their anger on right wing websites that falsely claimed the President had "ordered" Americans to celebrate LGBT Pride.

These assholes have always been with us, hiding under rocks, but now they have Twitter. One wonders, though, if the outrage comes from the declaration, or because Obama did it. Six of one. . . .