Why Are You LGBTQ?

This week I read a guest opinion piece in the LA Times called "Genetics and Proposition 8 - Human sexual orientation has deep biological roots."

The op ed explores the 'nature or nurture' question about sexual orientation. Authors Hamer and Rosbash ask, "Are some people born gay?" By citing scientific data they conclude, "Yes, some people are simply born gay." Because sexual orientation is immutable - not our choice - the authors also conclude that 'homosexuality' should be a legally protected class.

Hamer and Rosbash write:
"Recent studies in college classrooms show that exposure of students to information on the causes of homosexuality has a direct influence on opinions about gay rights. This fits with polling data showing that people who believe that gays are "born that way" are generally supportive of full equality, whereas those who believe it is "a choice" are opposed."

Who am I to argue with science?

Yet, I worry about building the LGBTQ liberation movement on the paradigm of, "It's not our fault." Often this framework leads LGBTQ people to say things like, "It's not my fault I'm gay. Who would choose to be discriminated against?"

As a strength-based social worker, I would prefer to hear LGBTQ people proudly proclaim, "I love being LGBTQ! Despite social stigma, threats of violence and legal discrimination, I have chosen to come out. How incredibly amazing am I and every other LGBTQ person who comes out? I love being a part of the LGBTQ community. Now I am actively working to end discrimination, violence and harassment - all of which are choices that some people and institutions make."

To offer another perspective, religion is fully a choice *and* is a protected class in the United States. What if we thought about LGBTQ rights in a similar way?

For example, a recent Pew study called "Religion Among the Millennials" found:

"By some key measures, Americans ages 18 to 29 are considerably less religious than older Americans. Fewer young adults belong to any particular faith than older people do today. They also are less likely to be affiliated than their parents' and grandparents' generations were when they were young. Fully one-in-four members of the Millennial generation - so called because they were born after 1980 and began to come of age around the year 2000 - are unaffiliated with any particular faith."

Are the reasons the Millennials are turning away from organized religion based in nature or nurture? Should we attack the Millennials for not choosing organized religion? Should they be legally discriminated against? Harassed? Kicked out of their families? Have to justify their choices? Most (reasonable) people would say, "Of course not."

In the end, what 'causes' sexual orientation is the wrong question. It shouldn't matter whether sexual orientation is nature or nurture. Heterosexuals are never asked to explain the causes of why they are straight (except for the fabulous "Heterosexual Questionnaire").

When we debate the question of why we are LGBTQ, we fall into a trap by accepting the framework of those who seek to actively harm us. We waste a whole lot of time, energy, resources and emotions trying to convince others (and sometimes ourselves) that 'it's not our fault.'

Instead, let's offer a new paradigm and a new question we ask of others - "I choose honesty. I choose love. I choose authenticity. What do you choose?"

“Cathy is usually a girl’s name…”

Last week, a 4-year-old looked at me earnestly, paused, then said, “Cathy is usually a girl’s name.”

I smiled and responded, “I am a girl. I just have short hair and I’m tall.”

“You don’t sound like a girl,” she countered.

I smiled again. “Some girls have deeper voices.”

Though she didn’t seem convinced, she moved on to more important topics (the deliciousness of putting potato chips in a sandwich).

When I was seven years old, I ran down two flights of school stairs and burst out the front doors for recess. Once outside, I yelled and spit. Mrs. Walls captured me. “What do you think you’re doing, young lady?” I shrugged my shoulders as the boys ran on in front of me, yelling and spitting. “Young ladies don’t run down stairs, and young ladies certainly don’t yell or spit. Back upstairs. No recess for you today.”

When I was nine years old, my Brownie troop took a field trip to Burger King. We toured the grill, walk-in freezer, and fry station – it was magical. When we were done with our tour, we each received a burger, fries, and Coke. “Small bites, young lady. Ladies take small bites.” “I’m hungry,” I mumbled, mouth full. “Well, too bad. You need to learn to eat like a lady,” as she picked at a salad and drank a Diet Coke.

When I was twelve years old, I was the only girl on after-school flag football team. “Lezzie. She even throws like a boy.”

Truth is, I threw better than the boys :)

When I was twenty-two years old (and 23 to 38 and counting). “Sir. You’re in the wrong bathroom.” I now send my partner ahead on bathroom reconnaissance to scope it out and let me know if it is single stall with a door that locks, and what my chances are to sneak in undetected.

When I was thirty-three years old... “What’ll you have, sir?” “A vagina,” I silently answered. “A Revolution,” my noiseless monologue continued. “Tecate with a lime, please,” I responded out loud.

“Oh my gosh i Am so sorry…”

“Why? Are you out of limes?”

When I was twenty-five years old, I was a junior high school English teacher. Another women’s clothing catalog showed up in my faculty mailbox for the third time in a week - only faculty had access to mailboxes. I held back tears. I quit my teaching job that year.

As a working-class daughter of a cab driver, my dad loved and celebrated my tomboy buoyancy. As the only girl of her four children, my mother cursed my skateboard and pleaded with me to trade it in for floral print blouses and pearls.

Long before I identified as a lesbian, people were identifying me as a dyke (un-reclaimed). Not because I was holding hands with or kissing another female, but because my external gender expression has always been “masculine” -- short hair, no make up, scraped knees, big burger bites. My internal sense of gender, however, has always been “feminine” -- emotional, intuitive, nurturing, gentle, apologetic. I am peaceful with and celebrate this dissonance; others, however, seem to struggle.

In US culture, social constructions of gender are inextricably linked with social constructions of sexual orientation. While I agree with June Jordan and “despair identity politics,” I do identify as a queer feminist lesbian…and as a woman.

Queer because it captures my politics and desire for social and economic justice for all. I like Eve Sedgwick’s definition of Queer: “The open mesh of possibilities, gaps, overlaps, dissonances and resonances, lapses and excesses of meaning when the constituent elements of anyone’s gender, of anyone’s sexuality aren’t made (or can’t be made) to signify monolithically.”

Feminist because I support choice—the choice to explore, express, transgress and transcend gender.

Lesbian because I am a strong woman who passionately loves another strong woman...and the culture of strong women.

And woman...because I want to expand the definition to include girls and women who look, eat, sit, spit, throw, cry, dress and run down the stairs....just like me. I want that 4-year-old girl to always take big bites of her potato chip sandwich, without shame or apology :)

That's So Gay

When something comes in threes, I pay attention. There has been a pattern to my messages about the power of language this week.

First, I received an email from a social justice listserve about a CBS article titled, “Support for Gays in the Military Depends on the Question.” The article reported that a CBS News/ New York Times poll finds that the wording of the question is key when it comes to determining whether Americans support allowing gays to serve in the military:

"When referred to as "homosexuals," 44 percent favor allowing them to serve openly. When referred to as "gay men and lesbians," the percentage rises to 58 percent.”

Next, I received an email from The DailyOM called, “Words Have Weight:” It stated:

“Words carry energy and this gives language its power and its potential to heal or hurt. When we carefully listen to others before we speak, our words have more integrity, and when we take time to center ourselves before speaking, we truly begin to harness the power of speech.”

Finally, I received an email about a piece in the 'Daily Camera' called, “Think, then talk: Cleaning up language just common courtesy” by Linda Campbell:

" 'That's just retarded' and 'That's so gay' have become all-purpose put-downs, used in contexts that have nothing to do with cognitively challenged or homosexual individuals.” (click here to see an excellent public service announcement by Wanda Sykes about "That's so gay")

The article highlights this coming March 3rd as the second "Spread the Word to End the Word" Awareness Day, which states “Our language frames how we think about others.” The website asks people to “Pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities."

The three articles all made me think about language and the LGBTQ and Allied community. I thought about

• The words “queer,” “dyke,” “fag” and “tranny” and how they are embraced and celebrated by some, and are rejected by and repulsive to others.
• How Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres, during their public coming out processes, referred to themselves as “gay women” rather than lesbians (Remember the "Yep, I'm Gay" Time Magazine cover?).
• How I cringe when I hear the phrase “gay lifestyle.”
• "Partner" vs "lover" vs "wife" vs "husband" vs "significant other" vs "spouse."
  
• People in the community who I have heard say, “LGBTQIAWLJFwhatever alphabet soup” dismissively and with exasperation.
• Euphemisms we have used: "In the life," "family" and "friend of Dorothy." (others?)
  
• How my mom referred to me as a "lezzie" and how that felt.
  
• LGBTQ and Allied people who I have heard use the phrase, “That’s so lame.”
• ‘Marriage’ vs ‘Civil Union’ vs “Domestic Partner’ vs “Designated Beneficiary.”
• How the radical religious right always refers to the LGBTQ and Allied community as “homosexuals” and why…
• and I thought about LGBTQ vs GLBTQ.

I don’t have a neat summary of these thoughts. I just wanted to share them with others to see what you think about the power of language and the LGBTQ and Allied community. What words do you use to describe yourself? Your community? Your family? What words and phrases make you cringe? How do words and language define and impact you? Define and impact others?

The DailyOM piece concluded:

“For the next few days, you might want to practice noticing how the words you say and hear affect your body and your emotional state. Notice how the different communication styles of the people in your life make you feel. Also, watch closely to see how your own words come out and what affect they have on the people around you.”

Give it a try and let us know :) What did you notice?

We love when simply loving is the most radical act there is...

“I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations.
I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.”
– Mother Teresa

Last week, a certain high-profile, highly polarizing figure sent media releases that said he was coming to Boulder to protest the funerals of the recent plane crash victims. His releases said that God caused the plane crashes because God is punishing Boulder for being a hotbed of homosexual sin…

A few members of the community wanted to stage a counter-protest at the funerals against the man from Kansas who sent the press releases.

(At this point, you may be wondering, “Why aren’t you just using his name? We all know who he is”).

* Exactly *

He gets so much of our time, attention and resources…and frankly, I’m done giving it to him. I’d rather put our collective energy somewhere positive.

He sends dozens of press releases to communities each day, threatening to show up and protest for one ridiculous reason or another. Turns out, he only shows up at a small percentage of the places that he says he is coming to. The Anti-Defamation League has tracked his press releases to actual ‘showing up’ ratio, and has found correlation – that when he receives significant prior media attention and plans for counter protests, he is more likely to come. When the local media and community ignore him, he doesn’t bother to show up. In fact, it appears from the news today that he was (again) a no-show in Boulder.

So, as the ADL encourages, the best way to counter-protest him is to simply ignore him.

Now, this response can be unpopular and seen as ‘doing nothing.’ Many people have been victimized by this man’s venomous rhetoric. The messages on his extreme neon signs elicit anger and, understandably, people want an outlet for their rage – they want to show him that we are stronger, smarter, angrier, holier, more righteous or more outrageous. Some believe that to not counter-protest seems weak…or like we are capitulating.

Here, I am reminded of the Hemingway quote, “Never mistake motion for action.”

What if, instead, we all (I’m talking media and the communities he targets) agree to simply ignore him? What if, instead, we channeled all that energy into something we are *for* and not against?

I offer this thought because I sometimes worry the LGBTQ and Allied movement has become defined by what we are against: we wage battles, we fight, we struggle, we protest. And indeed, there have been valid and vital reasons to fight. But do we know who we are as a community when we are not fighting?

I was once in a strategic planning meeting for an LGBTQ organization. Our facilitator asked, “If your organization does its job well, how will your community be different in 10 years?” The very first response was, “Tougher hate crime laws.” Many people nodded in agreement.

I raised my hand and offered a different vision: “How about no hate crimes?”

Silence. People paused, then shifted in their seats.

Is that even a realistic vision? Who would we be as a community if there were no longer hate crimes? How would we define ourselves? Would we still even have a reason to gather as a community?

I used to say that, as a ‘gay-for-pay’ I am trying to work myself out of a job. Someday, when discrimination, violence and harassment against the LGBTQ community ends, my work will be done and I can go get a ‘normal’ job – that we won’t need LGBTQ community centers anymore. Over the years, though, I have changed my thinking.

Perhaps when discrimination, violence and harassment against the LGBTQ community ends, we will just be getting started.

Rather than defining the LGBTQ community by what we are against, what if we started to think about our community in terms of what we are for? What are the gifts and talents that LGBTQ people have to teach others? Why else might we want to gather as a community that doesn’t involve protests? As Buckminister Fuller said, "You never change something by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."

I believe we have much to share with others about courage, strength, forgiveness, living passionately, honesty, creativity, risk, fun, community, parenting, spirituality, (not to mention, softball and fashion :) )….and, above all, about Love.

We are incredibly strong and resilient people who, despite negative social messages and institutionalized discrimination, not only ‘come out’ and survive – but thrive. We love when simply loving is the most radical act there is - whether it is loving ourselves fully and honestly for who we are or loving another.

What does it mean to start creating a community vision that is based in our strengths, our love, and what we are for?

What are you for?

What's the cost of Health?

In 2008, an estimated 9.1% of the U.S. population (27.4 million) delayed seeking medical care during the preceding year because of worry about the cost, and 6.4% (19.5 million) did not receive needed medical care because they could not afford it. According to the CDC, persons whose health was assessed as fair or poor were more than three times as likely as persons whose health was excellent or very good to delay seeking or not receive needed medical care because of cost.

The last year has been full of political posturing and debates around healthcare reform-- all of which boil down to "do we want to live in a society that takes care of another or do we not". We have endured comments like those by South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer comparing the poor to stray animals.


So I say, let's not play this game anymore. Let's commit to a society that is about counting the cost of not caring for our needy and for each other. 

The Gender of Parents only Matters in Ways that Don’t Matter...

The February 2010 issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family features a new study that has found same-sex couples (the study focuses primarily on lesbians) are as good at raising well-adjusted, healthy children as heterosexual couples (to read article about the study) The authors reviewed 81 studies conducted since 1990 that fell into one of two categories: two-parent family studies comparing lesbian couples with heterosexual couples in terms of parenting skills and/or the psychological and social well-being of their children; and studies that compared single-mother parenting with that of single-fathers.

The study concluded:
"The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting. Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones. The gender of parents only matters in ways that don’t matter."

As I read the study, it reminded me of a presentation on LGBT issues I once did at, of all places, on an Air Force Base in Tucson. It was a sociology class through Park University, which offers degree programs for the US Military.

My presentation was titled “LGBT 101.” After I went through the basics, I opened it up for questions. After a few general questions, someone in the class asked, “Thank you for your presentation. It was very good. BUT, don’t you have to admit that a child needs a mother and a father? That it’s not fair for gays and lesbians to have a child because that child will begin at a disadvantage – that they’ll get teased...that they will have a hard time making friends. That they need a mom and a dad to learn everything they need to know?”

I paused before I answered and, with a technique I’ve learned from facilitating groups, threw the question back out to the class. I responded, “What do others think? Does a child need a mom and a dad? Is it selfish for gays and lesbians to have children because they children will be teased? Will a child raised by an LGBT person or couple not learn things they need to know?”

Hands shot up around the room. Heterosexual single moms and those raised by single moms responded the loudest. They challenged the original questioner, letting him know that, while there are challenges that single parents face (namely, paying for daycare), that children raised by a single parent learn all that they need, and more...

Next to respond was someone who identified as biracial –as having a black dad and a white mom. He said that if his parents had listened to everyone who cautioned them not to have a child because the child would be teased, he would not be here today. He also said, "There was a time in our country where it would have been illegal for my parents to marry." (I don’t know that this man had ‘come out’ as biracial’ to this class prior to this discussion).

Finally, another person said, “Kids get teased for all kinds of things. Not having a child because they will be teased is not a good reason. We need to stop the kids who tease.”

As you can see, there can be great benefit in flipping the initial questions back to a class. I asked if anyone else had comments, and no one raised his/her hand. Looking back, I am sure there were people in the room who agreed with the original questioner, but through the beauty of peer pressure, they were silenced.

I summarized the conversation by adding, “What if it is true a child raised by gays and lesbians is more likely to be gay or lesbian? What’s wrong with that? Can you see how that comment still reflects heterosexism/homophobia?” (terms we had defined earlier in the presentation).

I also reflected, “I was teased growing up far more for the fact that my dad was a cab driver than my sexuality or gender presentation. Should cab drivers not be allowed to have children?”

And then I concluded, “Also, I was an unplanned pregnancy, as I imagine other people in this room were or perhaps have had children they weren’t planning on having. I am so glad I was born, but I was born into a home that was not necessarily emotionally ready, and definitely not financial ready. For most same sex couples, the decision to become parents doesn’t happen accidentally. There is often a great amount of planning, and that child is likely born into a home that is emotionally and financially ready for it.”

Yep - you guessed it. This last comment had gone too far. It was okay to assert that gays and lesbians may be tolerable or maybe even equal parents, but to at all suggest that there may be strengths gays and lesbians have as parents was unacceptable. Hands shot up again, wanting to challenge me that just because a pregnancy is unplanned, doesn’t mean anything.

“Fair enough,” I conceded. We discussed parenting a bit more, and then moved on to a different topic.

If I was presenting in that class today, I would be sure to bring the findings from the new study in the Journal of Marriage and Family...

February is National Heart Month!

We fight for love and equal relationship rights, so let's fight for healthy hearts! Some ideas for showing your heart you love it:

• walk up the stairs rather than take the elevator -- or take a short break during your day to walk around the block
• eat a breakfast of whole grains and skip the bacon
• quit or reduce your smoking
• switch to whole grain breads and pastas

What ideas do you have?

Perfectly Logical Explanations

In 2002, I attended the Social Justice Training Institute. As it says on the website:
SJTI provides an intensive developmental opportunity for social justice educators to examine the complex dynamics of race and racism, and to focus on how to develop personal competencies as trainers and practitioners.

It was a powerful training. One of the most enduring concepts I learned at SJTI is what is called a Perfectly Logical Explanation (PLE). Essentially a PLE is what often happens when a person names and/or gently challenges another person on her/his conscious/unconscious use of oppression.

For example, let's say a person of color is waiting at a checkout counter. Several times, the white clerk overlooks him in favor of other white people. If the person of color points this out to the clerk ( I have been waiting for over 5 minutes while you helped other people) the clerk may respond:

Oh. I just didn't see you.

That is a PLE.

Let's say the person of color then factually states, As a person of color, it happens to me all the time.

The clerk is likely to launch into even more rationales for his behavior : I simply didn't see you in line. I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are black. Why do you you people have to always play the race card?

What if, instead, the clerk responded, I apologize. Thank you for pointing that out to me and giving me an opportunity to learn and grow. I'm so sorry I engaged in unconscious, learned behavior that made you invisible. I'm committed to working on and unlearning my own internalized racism.
I know, I know. This kind of self-awareness and dialogue seems to only happen at social justice retreats.

As I read today's excellent New York Times editorial, Ad Follies of the Super Bowl, I thought about the PLE's in this situation.

During the Super Bowl this Sunday, CBS is airing a commercial from Focus on the Family**, while in 2004, they denied the United Church of Christ ad that featured two gay men in a church. This year, CBS rejected a commercial from ManCrunch, a gay men's online dating service.

When asked why they accepted the FOF ad this year and not the UCC ad in 2004, CBS said, that, under its new policies, the UCC ad would now have been accepted for airing. In response to rejecting the ManCrunch ad, CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs said:

After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot.
P. L. E. ' s. (Yeah, it sounds like, Paa-Leeze when you say it out loud).

Of course, as today's New York Times editorial points out, in 2007 CBS gladly aired a Snickers ad that used homophobia as humor.

What if CBS simply owned it? What if their statement read:
We ran the Snickers ad because it's okay (and even hilarious) to make fun of homosexuals (come on, gays...lighten up - even you laughed at that Snickers ad). We denied the UCC and ManCrunch ads because it's not okay to advocate for homosexuals or support them dating, particularly during such an male American institution as the Super Bowl. To be honest, the idea of two guys together makes us really uncomfortable.

I, for one, would appreciate the candor. No more PLE's, please.

(and, Go Saints!)


**Much has been written about the impending Focus on the Family ad that will air during Sunday's Superbowl. I will add just one additional thought to that process. The ad cost $2.8 million dollars.

Keep in mind. FOF has laid off significant numbers of staff since 2008 (in 2002, FOF employed 1,400 people; today, they employ 860). The last round of layoffs happened after FOF dumped more than a half million dollars into California to defeat Proposition 8, which repealed marriage equality for same-sex couples.

How many people could $2.8 employ? How many people could $2.8 feed, educate and shelter? These are questions I hope FOF constituents and donors are asking the organization.

Fox News says "Gay, Lesbian Teens Bullied More Than Heterosexuals"

I receive a daily email of news 'clippings,' if you will, of national stories about LGBT issues. In this morning's batch, there was an item from Fox News (yep) titled, "Gay, Lesbian Teens Bullied More Than Heterosexual."

Given that Fox News is known for being :::insert air quotes here:::: 'Fair and Balanced' I was interested to see their slant.

The piece begins:

Kids can surely be mean to each other. And for those who identify as gay or lesbian, life can be particularly tough. A new study shows these adolescents get bullied two to three times more than their heterosexual peers.

While the researchers aren't sure why this sexual minority gets bullied more than others or the type of bullying, which can include various verbal insults and physical assaults, they suggest in general those who are different from the social norm are often bully targets. Whatever the cause, the researchers say, the results have implications for parents and schools alike.

Whatever the cause?

Really? Is it a mystery?

In the US, we are all taught that heterosexual is the best and only way to be (known as "heterosexism"). We learn this message from our families, places of worship, schools, the media, on the playground and more. These messages, then are reinforced by laws and policies that openly and actively discriminate against LGBT people. These laws and policies teach bullies that, indeed, society agrees with you - that a gay teen is less than you. Discrimatory laws and policies are tacit permission to bully marginalized people.

The article concludes:

Though the study didn't get at the content of bullying, some research has shown that regardless of the target's sexual orientation, bullies tend to spout disparaging homosexual content, according to Berlan.

Exactly. Walk through the halls of a middle or high school and count the number of times you hear, "fag" or "that's so gay" - a common statement from students which means, "That's stupid."

I didn't come out until I was 24 years old. In hindsight, I see how my process was very much delayed by the conservative community I grew up in, which espoused openly that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination. When I began my coming out process, I was a middle school teacher. I know that studies often focus on school safety of LGBT people from a student's perspective.

As I cut my hair and began to externally express a more honest version of myself, I began to the target of bullying and harassment from students. A particular group of boys would walk into my classroom and pretend to the clearing their throats. They would mutter "dyke" as they did it. I was terrified I would be fired. I ended up quitting teaching as a result of an unsafe school environment and laws and policies that didn't protect me. These boys were simply enacting behavior society's laws and policies taught them.

A final thought. Many years ago Frontline, a series on PBS, did an episode called "Assault on Gay America: The Roots of Homophobia."

The series researched people who commit acts of violence against LGBT people, about how unconscious conflicts about one's own sexuality or gender identity might be attributed to LGBT people through a process of projection. What they found is that essentially, the more homophobic someone is and acts on it (ie bullying), the more likely they are to be struggling with their own internal issues around sexual orientation and gender identity.

It is imperative that the spotlight be on the bullies and the culture that creates them, not on the targets of their abuse. If we want to end bullying, our institutions must have laws and policies that treat LGBT as equals (think Episcopal church split; 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell;' Amendment 2; employment protection for teachers; legal relationship recognition).

As long as our institutions have laws and policies that bully LGBT people, students will feel justified in their actions to harm those students they perceive to be LGBT.

The roots of bullying are no mystery.