Here’s some food for thought:
A friend recently sent me the results of research done by the insurance industry on the incidence of transgender people in the United States. Their research concludes that there are approximately 20 million transgender people in this country and that about 400,000 of those are, like me, transsexuals (the severe end of the transgender spectrum of “gender identity disorder”).
This correlates very well with the research done by Lynn Conway from the University of Michigan finding that the incidence of transsexualism is about one in every 250 people in the United States. It supports the conclusions of Dr. Roughgarden (Harvard PhD and professor at Stanford) that transsexuals are unusual (statistical outliers) but well within the statistical definition of “normal”
So why are legal protections and societal acceptance so hard to come by? Think “women”, “blacks”, “disabled” and you will realize that the majority in power never easily accepts differences. Whether it is because they don’t want to admit that “they” are “us” too (my family, your family, our family), or because they fear a dilution of power, or just because they don’t want to acknowledge the rich diversity in God’s creation really doesn’t matter. It still hurts both society and people like me.
Sadly the one organization that should be leading the way in embracing all people (“God so loved the world”) often is the last to come to acceptance as illustrated in the church’s historic reluctance to accept blacks and see women as equal to men. Praying and working for change, Julie.
Showing posts with label christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christian. Show all posts
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Going Public, or Why I Blog
Someone anonymously posted a question that basically said "Why go public with this?" I thought I'd respond with a post, because I'm sure it is a common question. While I can't speak for my father, I know why I am writing this blog, which I think is a related question. This is not the first time a transgendered person has been discriminated against by their employer, and it probably won't be the last. However, if we draw attention to it, people will at least be aware of the issue, and may act to prevent a similar situation where they work. This might happen at a Christian College or University, where they take steps to define where the stand on the issue in advance, so that they might have a BFOQ. Or the issue may cause them to seek to understand more about what it means to be transgendered, and they might put affirmative policies in place. Either way it prevents illegal discrimination. While we can't eliminate these types of situations entirely, we can hope to lessen them.
If you think Spring Arbor University has taken a stance that is incorrect, publicity might help to change their minds. I assume SAU makes decisions like these with some regard for what their supporters (financial and otherwise) might think about the issue. If they have taken a position that is different than what these supporters might wish them to take, the only way for them to hear that is to make the story public. Most of those that care about this situation probably now know about it. If enough contact SAU, they may choose to moderate their stance and be more open to a reasonable mediation (even a reinstatement?), preventing this from having to go to court. Of course, many people will not make up their minds immediately upon hearing about the story. Those open-minded individuals will want to hear from different perspectives. That is what this blog is about: having a discussion.
In revealing this story to the press, some activist groups may try to claim that this story in fact supports their cause. This is what activist groups do. They spin a story and try and use it to further their own cause. Honestly, I think many activists have tried to spin this story to support their cause against the facts at hand. For instance, my father is not gay. We can't stop an activist group from doing what they will with the story, but we can be true to the facts of the case, and state how we view the issue in situations like this. The point of going public is not to rile up activist groups, but to hopefully further understanding and allow open-minded people to decide on the facts. Activist groups are pretty close-minded, so there is really no purpose in trying to have a discussion with them.
The anonymous poster noted that (paraphrasing) "it is easy to make scripture say what you want it to." I agree that there are ways of "proof-texting" for many arguments, but that is far from being a "Biblical stance." Acceptable methods for interpreting scripture will not look at a single verse, but also the verse in relation to other verse which might address the issue. When you look at all the verse that might apply, you may find you still can reach different conclusions. If the Bible does not decide an issue, we as Christians may take different viewpoints, but we should be gracious with those who disagree. There are many things that are "non-essentials" in the Christian faith, and I'd put whether it is acceptable to wear jewelry or not in the same category.
Another side note: I've seen more anonymous commentors then I typically do on other blogs. That's okay. I understand that this is a difficult issue to talk about, and I hope the ability to comment anonymously allows more to participate in this discussion. If possible, though, I'd ask that anonymous commentors use some way of differentiating themselves from the other anonymous commentors, so that we know you're not really all the same person.
If you think Spring Arbor University has taken a stance that is incorrect, publicity might help to change their minds. I assume SAU makes decisions like these with some regard for what their supporters (financial and otherwise) might think about the issue. If they have taken a position that is different than what these supporters might wish them to take, the only way for them to hear that is to make the story public. Most of those that care about this situation probably now know about it. If enough contact SAU, they may choose to moderate their stance and be more open to a reasonable mediation (even a reinstatement?), preventing this from having to go to court. Of course, many people will not make up their minds immediately upon hearing about the story. Those open-minded individuals will want to hear from different perspectives. That is what this blog is about: having a discussion.
In revealing this story to the press, some activist groups may try to claim that this story in fact supports their cause. This is what activist groups do. They spin a story and try and use it to further their own cause. Honestly, I think many activists have tried to spin this story to support their cause against the facts at hand. For instance, my father is not gay. We can't stop an activist group from doing what they will with the story, but we can be true to the facts of the case, and state how we view the issue in situations like this. The point of going public is not to rile up activist groups, but to hopefully further understanding and allow open-minded people to decide on the facts. Activist groups are pretty close-minded, so there is really no purpose in trying to have a discussion with them.
The anonymous poster noted that (paraphrasing) "it is easy to make scripture say what you want it to." I agree that there are ways of "proof-texting" for many arguments, but that is far from being a "Biblical stance." Acceptable methods for interpreting scripture will not look at a single verse, but also the verse in relation to other verse which might address the issue. When you look at all the verse that might apply, you may find you still can reach different conclusions. If the Bible does not decide an issue, we as Christians may take different viewpoints, but we should be gracious with those who disagree. There are many things that are "non-essentials" in the Christian faith, and I'd put whether it is acceptable to wear jewelry or not in the same category.
Another side note: I've seen more anonymous commentors then I typically do on other blogs. That's okay. I understand that this is a difficult issue to talk about, and I hope the ability to comment anonymously allows more to participate in this discussion. If possible, though, I'd ask that anonymous commentors use some way of differentiating themselves from the other anonymous commentors, so that we know you're not really all the same person.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Things Get Ugly at the Extremes
As I said in an earlier post, I think there is a lot of room for differences of opinion within the Church on the issue of what to think about the Transgendered. It isn't easy to define a solid position for or against it based on clearly applicable scriptures. There are a lot of verses at the periphery of the issue, and if you pick from those, you can come up with very different theologies. So, in light of that, it really bothers me when Christians resort first to attacking other Christians for their different interpretations. I'd challenge anyone who thinks that their theology captures all that God is to reconcile with Romans 11:33. Or, as Shakespeare would say: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Two clergy have taken up opposite extremes, each bashing the other, and I wanted to make it clear I don't think either of them are helping things.
The first is the "MadPriest," an Anglican priest from England. He posts the article from the CitPat with the heading "Today's Complete and Utter Bastards Are: Spring Arbor University." From perusing his blog, I think he is intentionally over the top, but I don't think it is helpful to having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate his support for my Father, but I don't think he has to bash fellow Christians to do it.
The second may be worse than the first. This one comes from the superintendant of the southern Michigan conference of the Free Methodist Church, Pastor Tom Ramundo. He tries to tar my father by association in noting that the whole thing "seems very carefully orchestrated" to advance the gay agenda. My dad's not gay, and he'll be the first to tell you there is a difference between being transgender and being gay (or maybe he'd be the second to tell you, and my mom the first, I'm not sure which). The article continues to quote him: "I know that university really well, and I know its leadership," he says. "I am sure they have endeavored to treat him in a redemptive way." The Free Methodist superintendent describes the situation as "just one of those issues where there’s that tension between love and purity, and the school’s just finally having to take a strong biblical stand." Of course, he doesn't say what makes this position "biblical" (they continue to be silent about what the Bible has to say about things). It just seems very arrogant and reckless to me placing his confidence in his personal relationships with the walking saints that apparently govern Spring Arbor. The facts: they told him to lie; kept him from relating with his fellow colleagues; and did everything they could to keep him out of sight. I don't see how this is meant to be redemptive. I could go on about the attrocities commited in the name of "purity" but that might be unfairly lumping someone together with something they are obviously not, and I'm trying to avoid that.
The first is the "MadPriest," an Anglican priest from England. He posts the article from the CitPat with the heading "Today's Complete and Utter Bastards Are: Spring Arbor University." From perusing his blog, I think he is intentionally over the top, but I don't think it is helpful to having a reasonable discussion. I appreciate his support for my Father, but I don't think he has to bash fellow Christians to do it.
The second may be worse than the first. This one comes from the superintendant of the southern Michigan conference of the Free Methodist Church, Pastor Tom Ramundo. He tries to tar my father by association in noting that the whole thing "seems very carefully orchestrated" to advance the gay agenda. My dad's not gay, and he'll be the first to tell you there is a difference between being transgender and being gay (or maybe he'd be the second to tell you, and my mom the first, I'm not sure which). The article continues to quote him: "I know that university really well, and I know its leadership," he says. "I am sure they have endeavored to treat him in a redemptive way." The Free Methodist superintendent describes the situation as "just one of those issues where there’s that tension between love and purity, and the school’s just finally having to take a strong biblical stand." Of course, he doesn't say what makes this position "biblical" (they continue to be silent about what the Bible has to say about things). It just seems very arrogant and reckless to me placing his confidence in his personal relationships with the walking saints that apparently govern Spring Arbor. The facts: they told him to lie; kept him from relating with his fellow colleagues; and did everything they could to keep him out of sight. I don't see how this is meant to be redemptive. I could go on about the attrocities commited in the name of "purity" but that might be unfairly lumping someone together with something they are obviously not, and I'm trying to avoid that.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Slideshow Added to CitPat Website
A slideshow has been added to the Jackson Citizen Patriot website that includes photos of my dad en femme at home with my mom. The video is a little under five minutes long and is narrated by my parents.
My Interview with the Jackson Citizen Patriot
I was interviewed for the story with the CitPat, but they only used a small portion of what I had to say in the second story. Here are the questions I was asked (in bold) by Steven Hepker, and the responses I gave. (The e-mail dates from 12 January 2007, but I'm glad that my Dad can still cheer for the Chicago Bears this week. Go Bears!)
How has the change impacted your relationship?
Overall, I'd say it has improved. There is certainly a trade-off. On the one hand, I felt a sense of loss of a connection I had with my father; I thought I understood him pretty well. Things changed when I learned of his condition, as I suddenly felt I didn't know him very well at all, as if I had grown up with a different person then the one sharing this news with me. The fears proved to be unfounded, as my dad still is pretty much the same person underneath. He still plays golf, enjoys playing games with his family, is still committed to his faith (in a renewed way, I think), and this coming Sunday after returning home from church, I suspect he may sit down in the living room to cheer on the Chicago Bears (or huff about Rex Grossman, depending how things go). Eventually, I had to come to accept the fact that this one area (transgenderedness) is something I won't ever really understand about my dad. The closest I can come, I think, is an analogy of the awkwardness of finding ones identity as an adolescent. I imagine the pressure only builds over time.
In some ways, I appreciate being able to know my dad in ways he never shared with me before. I admire the way my dad tried to model masculinity for the three of us (my two older brothers and me) as we grew up, but in trying to fulfill the stereotypical male role, he held back things about his identity (beyond his preference in clothing). Now my dad is more open about how he feels, to the extent that I sometimes don't know how to take it. Just this past Thanksgiving, we had a time of sharing as a family that went beyond what would have ever happened a few years ago. It is the getting to know my dad as he really is that makes it all worth it to me
Is it an overriding issue, or more in the background?
It is the "new thing" to talk about! I think our father/son relationship is still rooted as it has always been, in love. That's not to say that this new persona doesn't take some getting used to. Initially there was a lot of time spent on trying to "negotiate" our relationship - figure out "how does this change things?" There are still some things that will play out in time. Recently, things have focused more on progression of the EEO complaint, or the latest act of retailiation by the University (not as central things to our relationship, but it's what we talk about on the phone). Most of the time though, he's still just my dad.
Can you or do you tell friends your father is transgender?
I'll tell anyone who asks. Beyond that, I've told most of my friends with whom I'm in regular contact. Some good friends that I unfortunately don't get to see as frequently I have not told yet, out of the conflicting interests of wanting to share the news in person, but not wanting to sacrifice cherished quality time with people I only get a chance to see a few times a year.
What was your reaction to seeing your father as Julie?
I guess I'd say he could have done a lot worse dressed as a woman, and maybe I underestimated him a bit. Of course, I think my mom had given him quite a few tips by then. It wasn't as shocking as you might expect. When I look at her (I must admit, I'm still not used to that), I still see my dad.
How has the change impacted your relationship?
Overall, I'd say it has improved. There is certainly a trade-off. On the one hand, I felt a sense of loss of a connection I had with my father; I thought I understood him pretty well. Things changed when I learned of his condition, as I suddenly felt I didn't know him very well at all, as if I had grown up with a different person then the one sharing this news with me. The fears proved to be unfounded, as my dad still is pretty much the same person underneath. He still plays golf, enjoys playing games with his family, is still committed to his faith (in a renewed way, I think), and this coming Sunday after returning home from church, I suspect he may sit down in the living room to cheer on the Chicago Bears (or huff about Rex Grossman, depending how things go). Eventually, I had to come to accept the fact that this one area (transgenderedness) is something I won't ever really understand about my dad. The closest I can come, I think, is an analogy of the awkwardness of finding ones identity as an adolescent. I imagine the pressure only builds over time.
In some ways, I appreciate being able to know my dad in ways he never shared with me before. I admire the way my dad tried to model masculinity for the three of us (my two older brothers and me) as we grew up, but in trying to fulfill the stereotypical male role, he held back things about his identity (beyond his preference in clothing). Now my dad is more open about how he feels, to the extent that I sometimes don't know how to take it. Just this past Thanksgiving, we had a time of sharing as a family that went beyond what would have ever happened a few years ago. It is the getting to know my dad as he really is that makes it all worth it to me
Is it an overriding issue, or more in the background?
It is the "new thing" to talk about! I think our father/son relationship is still rooted as it has always been, in love. That's not to say that this new persona doesn't take some getting used to. Initially there was a lot of time spent on trying to "negotiate" our relationship - figure out "how does this change things?" There are still some things that will play out in time. Recently, things have focused more on progression of the EEO complaint, or the latest act of retailiation by the University (not as central things to our relationship, but it's what we talk about on the phone). Most of the time though, he's still just my dad.
Can you or do you tell friends your father is transgender?
I'll tell anyone who asks. Beyond that, I've told most of my friends with whom I'm in regular contact. Some good friends that I unfortunately don't get to see as frequently I have not told yet, out of the conflicting interests of wanting to share the news in person, but not wanting to sacrifice cherished quality time with people I only get a chance to see a few times a year.
What was your reaction to seeing your father as Julie?
I guess I'd say he could have done a lot worse dressed as a woman, and maybe I underestimated him a bit. Of course, I think my mom had given him quite a few tips by then. It wasn't as shocking as you might expect. When I look at her (I must admit, I'm still not used to that), I still see my dad.
Jackson CitPat Breaks My Father's Story
Today my Dad made the newspaper. The Jackson Citizen Patriot put the story of my transgendered father on the front page, and did a follow up 2-page story in the features section. Right now, only the front page article is available at the CitPat site, so I've provided a link to the document given to my Dad by the CitPat. The purpose of this blog is to tell the story about my Dad from my own perspective. Local newspapers will tell a story, national news will present an issue, and I hope to help you understand the characters in the "story."
To me, this isn't a national issue, or a local interest story, it is a personal one. I realize that people may take this issue and use it to advance some greater cause, and that any court decisions will set precedent, but I think we have to be careful about extrapolating on a single instance to create policy. Anyway, we'll save that rant for another time.
Let's take a look at how the CitPat did with the story. Generally, I think they did a pretty good job with a difficult story. At times however, they seemed to have strayed towards some unhelpful stereotypes that I don't find helpful. Spring Arbor seems to be cast as hypocritical "puritans" (or Free Methodists) with a "squeaky-clean reputation." I don't think Spring Arbor is being disingenuous. I also don't think Spring Arbor has ever had a squeaky-clean reputation with those who are close to it. That isn't to say that they are highly immoral, but what do you expect from an organization of admitted sinners? I'd hope for a little more grace, but I digress. I'm giving Spring Arbor the benefit of the doubt that they have some real convictions here, but I wish they'd share them, because I'm confused about what they really believe. They declined to comment on this article, and that bothers me. If they believe their position is Gospel, they should not be ashamed of it, and should use opportunities like this one to say what they really believe. It might help them establish a BFOQ.
Also this statement seems a bit too broad: "Evangelical Christians consider homosexual behavior an abomination, a sin against God. Those under the broad transgender umbrella are guilty by association." The Church is actually quite diverse, and the characterization of "Evangelical Christians" all believing anything (outside of The Creed) is probably an overstatement. It is a disservice to The Church to have an image of being so narrow-minded. I believe in a God that is bigger than any single viewpoint can capture. There are many disagreements in The Church, but I don't think it necessarily means one is right and the other is wrong. If you consider yourself an Evangelical Christian, and disagree with the quoted statement above, you can let the CitPat know by e-mailing a letter to the editor to Ken Wyatt at kwyatt@citpat.com.
If you'd like to play a part in bringing this situation to a resolution, you can contact the President of Spring Arbor University, Gayle Beebe at gbeebe@arbor.edu and Chief of Staff Damon Seacott at dseacott@arbor.edu. Please, don't send hate mail.
To me, this isn't a national issue, or a local interest story, it is a personal one. I realize that people may take this issue and use it to advance some greater cause, and that any court decisions will set precedent, but I think we have to be careful about extrapolating on a single instance to create policy. Anyway, we'll save that rant for another time.
Let's take a look at how the CitPat did with the story. Generally, I think they did a pretty good job with a difficult story. At times however, they seemed to have strayed towards some unhelpful stereotypes that I don't find helpful. Spring Arbor seems to be cast as hypocritical "puritans" (or Free Methodists) with a "squeaky-clean reputation." I don't think Spring Arbor is being disingenuous. I also don't think Spring Arbor has ever had a squeaky-clean reputation with those who are close to it. That isn't to say that they are highly immoral, but what do you expect from an organization of admitted sinners? I'd hope for a little more grace, but I digress. I'm giving Spring Arbor the benefit of the doubt that they have some real convictions here, but I wish they'd share them, because I'm confused about what they really believe. They declined to comment on this article, and that bothers me. If they believe their position is Gospel, they should not be ashamed of it, and should use opportunities like this one to say what they really believe. It might help them establish a BFOQ.
Also this statement seems a bit too broad: "Evangelical Christians consider homosexual behavior an abomination, a sin against God. Those under the broad transgender umbrella are guilty by association." The Church is actually quite diverse, and the characterization of "Evangelical Christians" all believing anything (outside of The Creed) is probably an overstatement. It is a disservice to The Church to have an image of being so narrow-minded. I believe in a God that is bigger than any single viewpoint can capture. There are many disagreements in The Church, but I don't think it necessarily means one is right and the other is wrong. If you consider yourself an Evangelical Christian, and disagree with the quoted statement above, you can let the CitPat know by e-mailing a letter to the editor to Ken Wyatt at kwyatt@citpat.com.
If you'd like to play a part in bringing this situation to a resolution, you can contact the President of Spring Arbor University, Gayle Beebe at gbeebe@arbor.edu and Chief of Staff Damon Seacott at dseacott@arbor.edu. Please, don't send hate mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
