Pregnant trans dissed on Morning Joe

I agree Mitch

And I would add, not only are GLBT voices excluded from the mainstream media, but it's hard getting them into left-wing non-mainstream sources like Salon.com.  They ran a particularly tone-deaf piece a month or so ago, insinuating that marriage must not really be that important to us because so few gays have gotten married.  But you could also say the same about African-American voices.  I've started checking out http://www.theroot.com.  

---

by: captainlarab @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:11:46 PM CDT

I heard similar comments

this morning in central Maine on the radio- was so mad I wanted to spit. 2 local hyuck-hyuck male DJs giggling over how "a man was gonna shove a baby out through his (whisper) PENIS!"

Personally, I think this is a great story and am happy for them.  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:15:39 PM CDT

Joe

I find Joe a thug masquerading as a good decent guy.  It's a version of Chris Mathews' Man of the People shtick that is pretty unpalatable.  keith Olbermann is a rare gleam of light on that channel.

What can you do?  I've written letters and emails to CNN and MSNBC ad nauseum, and joined campaigns to target sponsors.  I don't think it makes a difference in programming per se.  I wish it did.  However, it makes me feel good, especially writing an actual letter, stamping it and sending it off.

BTW, is Rachel Madow from AirAmerica gay?  She's on that idiotic David Gregory  show at 6 PM where he has dumbed himself down and apparently had a GOP mind meld.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:20:13 PM CDT

Rachel...

is openly lesbian.  She talks about her partner, Susan, on her show from time to time time.  She was out when she was a local disk jockey in Northampton, MA, as well.  We used to listen to her when she only knew the little people :)

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 19:08:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I figured

But she's never asked for specific feedback on gay issues, is she, on MSNBC?  Are they afraid?

Ah, Northampton, where I saw Susie Bright.  I miss the Five College nexus.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 20:47:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Her expertise isn't in queer issues

It's in national and international politics.  There's no reason to invite her onto MSNBC to talk about gay rights.  

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 21:03:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No?

But aren't gay rights a national, political issue?

I admire her intelligence, wit and lack of hostility so much, I think she'd be great speaking to these issues.  She can make wonderful points without feeling obliged to put down the other side with contempt.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:20:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with that, but...

...I think Eugene Robinson would be annoyed if he were constantly brought on to talk specifically about issues related to Black Americans.     I don't see Rachel as seeing her role to speak on behalf of lesbians.  I think she sees her role as analyzing news that's relevant.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not saying that

I'm not suggesting she become The Gay Voice, but I don't recall her ever being asked a gay rights-related question by Chris Matthews or David Gregory.  I'd like to see that included in her vast range of smart commentary on MSNBC.


"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 15:01:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bishop Gene Robinson

Are you confusing Bishop Robinson with someone Black? He is the openly gay Episcopal Bishop in NH...

---

by: CathyG @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 19:46:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There are many Eugene Robinsons

In this case, I believe she is referring to the Associate Editor, and twice weekly columnist, of the Washington Post.
http://projects.washingtonpost...

If you want allies, you have to be an ally.

---

by: dale @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:07:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*nods*

I was referring to the Eugene Robinson who, like Rachel, is a news analyst for MSNBC and whom Rachel actually interviewed last night.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:15:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I miss the Five College area too

though I was there a few years before it became Lesbianville, USA.

---

by: NancyP @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 15:09:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Northamp and Amherst

have a special place in my heart- met my husband there 20 yrs ago. In fact, we went back last fall for our 15th anniversary.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 15:28:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When were you there?

I was at UMass for the MFA program (then ranked #3 after Iowa and  Johns Hopkins) from 1975-1978.  I loved the rich cultural life of the Five Colleges, the lectures, films, concerts, readings.  But I was sad to go back in the early 90s and see how built up Route 10 was from Northampton to Amherst,

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 16:07:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

1988-90

But I have family on Station Rd (heading out towards Belchertown) that have lived in Amherst for almost 50 years. I was first in Amherst in 1975 as a 10 year old kid and liked it very much.

My husband attended from 77-82, so you were there the same time!

I think you mean Rt 9 from NHamp to Amherst; "5 & 10" was the highway that chased along the east side of the river up through S Deerfield to Greenfield and beyond. We had last been there on our honeymoon in '92; it's FAR more crowded and built up now...

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 16:23:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rte. 9, yes

I was never very good with arithmetic!

I had such fond memories of how green the area was and to return and see so many trip malls shocked me--it looked like Anywhere, USA.  Of course, Amherst itself still looked the same--except the old drugstore downtown near the Lord Jeffrey Inn (is that the name) had been replaced by a KFC!  Heartbreaking (and heartburn).  My two and a half years in Western Mass. where some of the happiest of my career--that's where I was launched as a writer, winning the Harvey Swados Fiction prize (judged by Martha Foley) and then getting published in Redbook.  I entered the program a budding writer and left someone very different.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:33:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, it's the "Lord Jeffrey" aka Lord Jeff

in fact, we spent one night of our honeymoon there, watching the VP Debate between Gore, Stockdale and Quayle. The great Chinese restaurant is still there across the street and further down the street, my old watering holes Charlie's(townies and college kids slumming) and The Spoke (with bicycle motif)!

It's funny; I never really considered how living in that area for years helped erase so much deeply ingrained bigotry and racism from my Eastern Maine upbringing. But in retrospect, it definitely was a start. Yes, it's a much busier place now, but I can see how it still can influence young people as it did you and me.

I always loved the drive up to Sunderland with the big fields and barns- for a time, I lived in S Deerfield, worked in Greenfield at the hospital and partied in Amherst. The scenery was absolutely wonderful, esp in fall!

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 15:01:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Five Colleges - 1972 to 1977

(Mount Holyoke College) - I have fond memories of hiking the mountain (hill, 600 ft elevation) range between the (hill) Mount Holyoke near the river, to the "Notch" (pass where the road from S. Hadley to Amherst runs).

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 13:00:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Joe Scarborough

This guy seems to have a real hard spot with the GLBT community in general - he treats Rachel Maddow (one of the better MSNBC political analysts) with utter contempt and disrespect. I didn't think Scarborough was that bad until I saw him talking down at Maddow on several occasions.

It would actually be poetic justice to see Joe get canned when his mouth overloads his ass one to many times, and be replaced by Maddow (who deserves her own show on MSNBC).

---

by: bogenrim @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:25:13 PM CDT

You have to wonder--

--why he finds her so threatening, but then I've seen him flash contempt at lots of people.  He seems contempt-based to me, quite pugnacious, the kind of guy who could easily get into a bar brawl for no good reason.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:34:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

His days are numbered...

...it will either be Scarborough or Dan Abrams that gets the boot next at MSNBC - Tucker Carlson's departure was well-earned based on crappy ratings and the even worse quality of his show. BTW, Maddow was guest anchor for Countdown on Friday - her performance was excellent (and probably a screening as anchor for her own show eventually).

---

by: bogenrim @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Morning Joe

There was a black comic that would appear daily during the first weeks too, name of Chuck Nice. I hear Mika ran the Rev. Wright story into the ground.

---

by: LeeColes @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 16:28:09 PM CDT

Laura Ingram also sniggered

She made it a focus segment - about what you would expect from someone who feel it appropriate to criticize Robert Reich for his height and makes fun of people's voices...

Is it just me or do the right wing rant radio people sound a lot like children on an elementary school playground?

Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 17:13:30 PM CDT

No

...little kids on a playground are supervised. That's the problem- who's enforcing any sort of "rules" on the ranters?

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 17:54:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

so sad

this is a wonderful couple and this goes to show the diversity of the human condition.  how dare people feel the right to mock them or harass them?  who decides what is normal?

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 17:16:29 PM CDT

Maddow

BTW, is Rachel Madow from AirAmerica gay"

Yes.

she talks about her partner on the radio all the time, even including her in those lame 1-800-Flowers adverts they have to do.

and i heard she's guest hosting Olbermann tonight?


http://breakthterror.blogspot.com

---

by: breaktheterror @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 17:52:08 PM CDT

You're right...

...you ARE a masochist.

---

by: johnbinpt @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 18:12:13 PM CDT

Hooray for The Family!

I think this pregnant guy's little family is awesome!  It gives me faith in the saying (from Jurassic Park) that 'life finds a way'.  This is a new shiny jewel in the crown that is the American Family.  It really gives me hope for those of us who don't fit the old traditional mold.

---

by: lampster @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 21:36:13 PM CDT

Petey

I'll bet the Peter's having fun with this one.  I'd go check out the Americans for Lies site, but I'm afraid my computer would crash.

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 22:57:52 PM CDT

The poor kid, being born into a loving family...

...with two loving parents. How rough a life is that going to be?  (And yes, that is sarcasm....I wish only the best for this family.)

---

by: the.sue @ Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 23:17:08 PM CDT

I agree.

I think this whole thing is sick...This is not a man having a baby. This is a woman who has no breasts, has a beard and is obviously very confused. Tragic.

---

by: Thomas @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 00:16:54 AM CDT

He is a man in the middle of transition useing the parts he was born with for

Having a baby.  Once born He can raise the child and finish transition.  Nothing to sock about it.  The  man wants children so he is having one, sure there will be a lot of shit said, but the cost of him transitioning and than adopting I am sure he would be denied that right.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 00:26:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

.

Are you developmentally disabled?

These are two loving adults who wish to bring a child into the world that they can raise, love, and nurture.

Thomas is not confused.

This is not tragic.

It is highly doubtful that Thomas will parade around nekkid, taunting the child. What parent does shit like that?

Grow up and accept that there are people in the world who are not like you, who don't think like you, and yet who are absolutely fine.

Dolt.

---

by: teac @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:11:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I understand your point entirely, teac

but please be careful with how you insult people.

I have a disabled daughter who already understands at age 10 that families are comprised in a myriad of different ways- not just the Mommy+Daddy (ie, female+male) formula. To compare Thomas and his bigotry to my loving, compassionate child isn't right.

That aside- Thomas, I pity you and your inability to learn acceptance. For you and your ilk, you're missing the point and will continue to do so until you come to posts like this, not for the sake of vitriolic trolling, but to STFU, open your mind, and learn.

Not to downplay what could be a father's importance in a child's role, but many children do not know who their biological father is for a variety of reasons- they are not all in "a tragic and sick" situation, as you so eloquently put it.

A child needs a PARENT or PARENTS. When you know the difference between a PARENT vs "Mommy" or "Daddy", come on back and maybe you will learn more.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:14:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry Louise.

Very poor choice on my part. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

---

by: teac @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:30:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course...

we're buds! No harm, no foul, and no biggie.

Here's the thing. Everyone makes accidental improper word choices outside of their own "labelled little box o' existance"- as a straight white gal, I've tried to learn what mine are. And the only way that can occur is to befriend and learn from folks in other different little labelled boxes. (if that overly simplified analogy makes sense; I'm far better at humor/sarcasm than any sort of deeper thought...)

I've learned that there are a gazillion similarily labels and boxes- funny how we all want to be treated the same! If more could just accept that we all DESERVE to be treated the same w/o consideration of what labels WE OURSELVES ASCRIBE TO OURSELVES (screw what labels others ascribe to us)... with time, patience and education I hope this will be an attainable goal soon.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:55:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

.

But I know better. That's the thing.

I remind my partner, who works with a lot of uneducated laborers, not to use the word "retarded" as a descriptor. She uses it to describe things / people / situation she finds stupid and annoying because it's such an elementary-school manner of discourse and connects with the crew.

:-(

Thanks for the forgiveness. I owe you...

---

by: teac @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strange you should use "retarded" as an example!

...because just yesterday, my husband and I took a paper our middle schooler had been given by her English teacher and complained to the principal. It was a list of about 50 character traits that the kids were supposed to use to describe various characters within a reading assignment.

About 1/2 way down the page was "retarded". Not as a noun, but as an adjective. When I saw it the night before, I flipped! Mary said she was quite upset when she read it and concerned about how her autistic sister will be treated when she moves up to the school. Valid concerns we raised with the principal, who agreed with us that he needed to look into this immediately.

I got an email "explaining" that while the teacher HAD passed it out to her students, it was not HER list of words- and that it was meant "similar to describing Lenny in "Of Mice and Men"- and an apology. I'm still dissatisfied, but that's more of a personal nature- her tone was as if she was explaining to an uneducated child, not 2 well-read college graduates... bleah. So am letting it pass for the moment.    

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 13:19:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well that's (unfortunately) what went thru my mind first.

Good to let the issue pass at school given your previous experience of being banned from school grounds! My mom's a retired elementary school principal - I can't imagine her allowing either situation you've faced to pass.

---

by: teac @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 14:15:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As parents

we have to pick and choose our battles (then go throw rocks at the barn later when the kids can't watch you burn off the frustrations!) I am far more calm on behalf of my kids than I want to be- but I also have a LONG memory. Maybe after my own have gotten through the system I will understand the processes of public school better and can attack it constructively to help others.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 15:34:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is still sick

You can have love, concern and empathy for someone born with a confused gender/physical state  but this is still tragic and sick for bringing an infant into this situation with no known bio father. Contrary to what you may think, 'love' is not enough....

---

by: Thomas @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 00:35:23 AM CDT

Children are born all the time not knowing who the true bio-father is.

  This baby is going to be brought up in a home with two loving partents.  Why all the fuss?  People are trying to paint and twist this story with the fundie mind set.

 I see it no worse than what I did, fathered two children and transitioned when they were 9 and 13.  I took the time and had professional people explain to them what was happening.  No big deadl except my ex-wife is pissed off because I have custody of them.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 00:53:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, it is not sick. Much less "still".

Seriously.

Get over your bad self.

Worry about your own life.

Worry about how your bigoted beliefs will negatively impact your children's abilities to function in a modern, diverse world.

Would you rather have them embrace good people who are different and thus expand their horizons, or be narrow as you seem to be, foreclosing any real understanding of fellow human beings?

You are the one who is sick.

You should be lucky if nothing makes you feel like an outcast where people like you feel it is there duty to make you feel like shit day in day out.

Jerkoff.

---

by: teac @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 04:17:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Andrew Sullivan ...

Sullivan is one of the gay 'pundits' who appears on media far too much. He is openly transphobic and always seems to position himself to be contrarian for effect, whatever the issue. He portrays himself as an ethical and spiritual advisor to the gay community, yet his personal conduct has involved him in several scandals. Why Sully and not much better speakers like Pam, Mike Signorile, or Mike Rogers?

---

by: Ralph4159 @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 00:57:12 AM CDT

Go, Pam!

I think we have a way to go before the MSM trusts people like Pam ("Heavens, she's only a blogger!"), and that's sad, given how eloquent and thoughtful she is. The MSM has been glacially bringing in new POVs. As I've been following the campaign, I've noticed more and more radio hosts on TV, and especially local radio hosts.  What's struck me is that they are often much more intelligent, interesting, compelling, and insightful than the same old pundits we see again and again.  I can't recall their names, but Chris Matthews had two male radio hosts from PA on (one black, one white) the other night and both of them ran rings around other analyses of Obama's appearance on Chris Matthews' show.  Instead of seeing everything in terms of a game or strategy, they went to the core of the hour: what he said, what it meant, how he said it, how they themselves responded and how they experienced the responses of the audience.  Sounds basic, right?  Yet the regular pundits continually talk about every statement of Clinton's and Obama's as if they're watching a chess match.  They get paid huge salaries and all they can offer is cliches.  For me, one of the best parts of this campaign is hearing American voices other than the same old yammerati.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:33:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brave of them

To go forward with this.  I agree a lot of the comments on the Oprah site were ugly, but I find I have to agree with many of them taking this couple to task for participating in the media circus that was bound to arise (that's all that Oprah is, a media circus mistress, can't wait for the musical).  This child will be the Louise Brown of its generation, only to judge by the reaction, that's not necessarily a good thing.  Why would a parent subject their child to such scrutiny?  

---

by: Brian @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:50:36 AM CDT

I see this argument a lot,

and I really don't understand it. One comment on the Oprah page, to paraphrase, says 'Kids get made fun of enough for zits, glasses and braces.'
So should Black people stop having children because they might be subject to racism? Should fat people, diabetics, people with bad eyesight, etc. become celibate so their children don't get picked on? Should all celebrities be obligated to remain childless because the kids will spend their lives surrounded by a media frenzy? We don't question the rights and rarely the morality of any of these people when it comes to their children.
To the mothers on that Oprah page I would say if you are worried about people picking on or teasing these children, teach your own children not to do it and there won't be a problem. These people, including the media, don't realize that they are the ones with the problem. It is possible to be fascinated by something 'new' without being cruel.

It was made very clear on the Oprah program that this couple have been hounded and exploited without their permission, and the decision to go on Oprah and tell their story on their own terms was a way to put a stop to the negativity. That show and the concurrent People story are basically the first time they have opened up since the whole 3-ring-circus started.
I take no issue with Thomas writing a book either. There are  but a few regional laws in this country to stop this couple from being subject to discrimination in housing and employment. Now that the media has made a mess of their lives, why shouldn't Thomas be the one to profit from it instead of page hits for Drudge? If they have to go into hiding, as they discussed on the show, because of the media, Thomas has every right to support his family with some of the money the media is raking in with his story.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"why shouldn't Thomas be the one to profit..."

Because it isn't about Thomas.  It's about the kid.

---

by: Brian @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 02:06:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh?

I don't see your point. The book is not likely to be exploitive, given their attitude and their stated reasons for going on the show. Thomas stated the book is his own life story which he started writing at 17. Not a book just about the baby. Are you saying the child won't benefit from any money he makes (if he makes any at all)? Or that the child's life will somehow be ruined by a possible baby photo? I don't think that is a judgment you can make until it comes out. These are not people relying on their 15 minutes. They discussed going into hiding on the show if necessary, to protect their child.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:09:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The thing about Joe...

...is that he's very friendly and affable, and comes across as having a real sense of humor, so when he says the occasional truly horrible comment it's just this sort of joke.  When I lived in Providence, RI, I knew a lot of guys like him who would just be talking like a perfectly nice guy but as soon as he got comfortable with you, you'd start hearing things about all the niggers, spics, wetbacks, faggots, etc.  

It's so pathetic, sad, and yet people like this have some real power at times.

I'm only a click away.

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 03:47:40 AM CDT

"Transparent" movie

I heard about this documentary a year or two ago... would LOVE to see it but haven't been able to. It's about FtM parents; perhaps some of the situations are similar to Thomas's and his partner.

http://www.transparentthemovie...

---

by: CathyG @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:28:30 AM CDT

Affable on the surface

Joe seems like a good affable guy but as Julie says above, but he can come out with horrible statements, and I think those reflect who he truly is.  They're not an exception.  Like many GOPers, he falls on the normative side, according to psychologist Silvan Tomkins.  Normative: adhering to rules, where rules and how things should be mean more than people.  That's the GOP in a nutshell.  Democrats tend to be "humanistic": people matter more than rules and individual cases need to be considered. For people like Joe, this pregnancy breaks too many rules and nothing else matters; it disturbs his need for order.  I actually find him repellent and pugnacious; I don't trust his easy attitude because I've seen what's beneath enough to know it's a facade.  

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:26:15 AM CDT

I watched the Oprah show on Thursday

My impression was that they were a deeply loving, intelligent, stable and committed couple who had thought all of this out very carefully. Thomas stopped taking testosterone 2 years prior to conceiving so the pregnancy would be a normal one. The wife's adult daughters were in the audience and were enormously supportive and positive. As was the studio audience.
They were not at all publicity-hungry and said at least 3 times during the show that they had decided to come forward because they had been subjected to threats of violence thanks to all the news stories which they had no control over. Therefore they wished to tell their story on their own terms, if it was to be told anyway. (Illustrated at one point with a video of Thomas explaining how someone had come into their yard at 2:30 am and banged on their window. He feared for his child. I wonder how many anti-abortion fundies would like to see him get one?)

I watched because I wanted to see if Oprah would be salacious and sensationalistic as she so often is with these topics, (see any of her 500 shows about closeted husbands.) But aside from some unnecessarily detailed questions about Thomas' genitals, she was quite respectful and full of praise for the couple.

Thomas and his wife also mentioned that they had received no support at all, moral or otherwise, from the LGBT community (or at least the political and community orgs.) I was embarrassed to hear this. I hope that will not be the case moving forward, as so many people other than those concerned about their image are aware of and touched by this couple's  story and their sincerity.

I also hope Oprah has the fortitude to stand up to her hate mail. She talks about it all the time in fearful terms, always saying the biggest bulk is for her shows on gay issues. She should have the courage not to back down from these bigots. She should read her hate mail right on her show and take the cowardly internet-anonymity out of the hatred. You can tell her producers this as I did here:

http://www.oprah.com/email/rea...

Maybe it will counter some of the negativity. She is a hugely influential person, so it's not folly to be concerned about the way she presents LGBT issues or to encourage her to do it in a positive way, just as we would a politician.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:47:19 AM CDT

what I saw

  I saw a loving, stable and great looking couple too. I saw adult half sisters (who were GORGEOUS!), looking on their mother and step father with love and compassion and happy anticipation of their new little sister.

 This little girl will be born into a caring, supportive and loving family after much consideration and difficulty to bring her life.

  Here in CA, a woman was arrested in NV after the partially decomposed body of her newborn daughter was found in an alley behind the house she used to reside in. A dog found it.
 Imagine, your own mother throwing you over a fence after you're born, killing you and leaving you among the garbage.

  And here people are going to give Thomas and his wife and child a hard time?

 How twisted and sick is that?

---

by: Regan DuCasse @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:07:55 AM CDT

I watch Morning Joe too

Morning Joe has been a guilty pleasure of mine for some time. I too thought that Joe, Mika and Willie were hip, worldly people that had open minds. Particularly Mika. I was very disappointed to hear their discussion about the pregnant man last week - and I may not watch again.

Having said that, I have never understood why transgendered people are lumped in with gay people in the general discourse. This is actually something fairly recent (last 10 years or so). While I think that the transgendered certainly have endured discrimination that is unjust, I don't think they should be included as part of the overall push for equality for gays. I, as a gay man, have little in common with transgendered people. Gender identity and sexual orientation have absolutely nothing to do with one another. While I believe that transgendered people should be afforded all the rights that every person should be granted and I think laws need to be in place for their protection, too many people incorrectly think that there is a connection between homosexuality and the transgendered. This is one of the things that causes the Sally Kerns of the world to attract followers. GL was fine GLB was pushing it, GLBT is counterproductive.  

---

by: Walt @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 14:09:40 PM CDT

gender expression is a shared concern for gays and transgender

Walt, the bullying and abuse which children receive often occurs because they do not conform to accepted standards of what a "normal" boy or girl looks like or how they act.

As adults, discrimination and bashing often occurs because the individual does not meet the stereotypical image of how a heterosexual man or woman appears or behaves.

I think gender expression is a common concern which unites all in the GLBT family.

If you want allies, you have to be an ally.

---

by: dale @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 19:25:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Queer

That's why, when it was more in vogue anyway, I liked the word "queer" for LGBT because it created a category of people who didn't confirm to gender expectations and roles.  I know it's a loaded word that for many people is filled with pain, and I respect that.  But I did find a useful way of linking together disparate "populations"--and of course, turning the word inside out.  

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:38:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why stop at GLBT?

I understand your concerns, but why not add transvestites to the list. How about straight guys who get exposed in the press as favoring the company of a dominatrix. Those guys don't fulfill gender expectaions either. Straight men who desire women's clothing have to go to great lengths to conceal who they really are.

Transgendered, transvestites, straight men who enjoy being abused and belittled have absolutely nothing to do with me as a gay man. I whole heartedly support full rights and non discrimation initiatives put forward on their behalf. But I am simply saying that gay people are doing themselves a big disservice by adding additional groups to our fight for rights and equal treatment and to fight discrimination. Altruism and middle America do not mix.

The struggle we face as gay people is about sexual orientation NOT gender identity. They are apples and oranges.  

---

by: Walt @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:37:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, but--

Please note that I used the past tense ("liked"  "did find").  I'm an author and careful about the words I choose. I wasn't expressing present concerns or even concerns at all.

I do think you're blurring a line you want to keep straight (so to speak) by bringing in specific sexual practices (like SM with a dominatrix).  And transvestites are considered straight men who get off on wearing women's clothing; that's the realm of specific fetishes, not gender identity at all.  Transgendered and transvestite are very different from each other.

This argument about GLBT has come up here before and arouses strong sentiments.  I confess that at the moment I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other.

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:51:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not quite.

Identity and orientation may be two different things but the people dealing with them frequently overlap. If you think T shouldn't be included just because it doesn't affect you personally, that's extremely myopic. There are some T-folk who identify as LGB before they transition. There are some LGB's who consider becoming T and don't. There are tons of gay men and lesbians who would be left out in the cold due to a lack of identity protection in ENDA. (And even some straight people.)

I don't care how butch a gay man is, (or thinks he is,) many anti-gay Americans would be just as quick to discriminate against him when it comes to housing and employment as they would a t-person. (And in some cases, even more likely to judge him, as some T-folk don't exist in the world of gay culture at all, which is some bigots' biggest objection.)
Many Americans who hold anti-gay views don't care what you consider yourself. If they know you are gay they will assume you do drag and want to be a woman. They make no division between you and a T-person at all. (And no division between drag queens and T-folk, either.) Whereas a straight man into bondage is in an entirely different category. (Look at LaBarbera. He is obsessed with leathermen, and doesn't even seem to notice that there are 10 times as many heterosexuals participating in those kind of activities.) If you don't experience these assumptions in your life, consider yourself lucky, you are in the minority.

Leaving "gender identity" out of ENDA nearly invalidates it on a functional level. That means every effeminate man or masculine woman who doesn't conform to an employers idea of gender is open to discrimination through this loophole, whether they are a T-person or not. For employers prone to bigotry, it's business as usual.

As a gay man myself I'm repulsed by the line of thinking that says if only the T's would splinter off we'd have a much easier time of things. However compassionate you might be feeling towards T's in the process of expressing that is meaningless.
The attitude is comparable to the one the assimilationist gay establishment had in the 80's when they begged the news media not to focus on drag queens and dykes-on-bikes in their coverage. It accomplishes nothing except to splinter our political power and let the Sally Kerns of the world know that we can be easily shamed, bought, manipulated, and stuffed back inside our closets.

I would say the same things to T-people who believe gay men are the ones holding them back. And I've heard convincing arguments in that direction. The whole point of discrimination protection for a community of people is that certain people hate you collectively, no matter how you see yourself as an individual.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, an excellent post!

You bring up a lot of excellent points, and I agree with most of what you said.

Here's the problem:  You, as well as most of the folks on PHB, are thoughtful, intelligent and highly evolved when it comes to trans issues and gender identity.  Unfortunately, the majority of society has a LONG way to go in understanding it.  I think the issue is going to take years and years of exposure, education and discussion for folks to begin understanding and accepting it, as it has taken MANY years for society to understand and accept the whole gay thing.

That is why I reluctantly support the idea of moving forward on ENDA without gender identity.  This all-or-nothing stance much of the gay community supports does nothing to protect the run-of-the-mill gay folks who are the overwhelming majority of the community.

I understand and share the aversion to taking what we can get now without getting everything we want right now.  I personally feel the same way about marriage equality.  Is civil unions what we really want?  No.  Do civil unions move us one step in the right direction?  Yes.

Unfortunately, progress takes time.  And to expect the average American at this point in time to accept something as radical as a pregnant man without batting an eye is unrealistic.  In fact, I think it just further confuses a public that's just starting to understand what gender identity even IS.

I think we need to give our dumbed-down society a chance to catch up.  In the mean time, let's keep moving FORWARD, albeit one small step at a time.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 14:18:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

I appreciate your point of view when it comes to ENDA, and I agree change can't happen overnight. Unfortunately I have also heard many gay men use this perspective as an excuse to bash T-folk, or blame them for the lack of passage, when the reality is that ENDA is not going to pass with or without the T under this president, and we have two democratic presidential hopefuls who have both stated on the record that they will sign a T-inclusive ENDA.

It's one thing to assume Joe America will need a lot of educating, it's quite another when you check out the threads about Thomas on a site like JoeMyGod, and realize that up to 50% of the comments are gay men who are either hateful, disgusted, misogynistic, angry or terrified of what this story will do to their own personal image. It's very depressing to me.
Sometimes it seems like if you throw them a few crappy TV shows and corporate sponsors for their circuit parties, half of the gay men in the country will decide they're now mainstream and it's ok for them to crap on people the way they've traditionally been crapped on. Or maybe this is the division the ENDA debate created coming home to roost, I don't know.

I do know that many of these men need a wake-up call. Perhaps time spent outside of their affluent ghettos and in the real world would remind them of the past activism and inclusiveness which they take for granted. Worked for me.

____________________

Donate to Carmen's Place

---

by: jackalope @ Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 19:20:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gay men

are as susceptible as anyone else to the "me first" trend in the culture. Generally the more wealthy one is, the less one thinks that community solidarity and community resources are valuable, and the more one relies on money and assimilation to upper-class "straight looking, straight acting" behavior to either pass or protect from open insult.

However, many well-off white gay men are not like that, but are motivated to give back to the LGBT and wider communities. These people benefit from contact with and education by individual transpersons.

---

by: NancyP @ Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 13:11:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This was a great post, but I wonder

How on earth does one actually combat this kind of pervasive ignorance? Or are we already on the right track, by discussing the issues and demanding change in our laws and society? Can we speed up the process somehow, or does it have to be a matter of helping the momentum along one mind at a time?

What has worked in RL with my kids is to show them the 'flip side' of the coin- for example, when my then 11 yr old said "EWWW!" regarding a child being raised by a gay couple, I asked her why that was her reaction. Then asked her to imagine a scenario where having parents of different genders was considered non-mainstream, or if BY LAW, her parents were not allowed to legally marry.

Seeing it that way stopped her dead in her tracks, made her look at her views and see that other side of the coin. It was like watching a switch flip in her head- she "got it" instantly. (I think the comment was "OH! That's so WRONG!!")  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 15:45:21 PM CDT

Our kids

That is very cool, Louise.  Framing it in ways she can see it, without being critical.

My spouse had been married to a woman first and when we moved in together, we were in the same school district so that the kids could go to school from each house on the bus, and the two houses were just a bike ride away.  We were amazed with what they came up with, like saying they wanted to do things "as a family"--movies, etc.  And one saying once confidentially, "I wish Mom could meet someone the way Dad met you."  Simply being us, enjoying each other's company and lives and careers, opened their eyes.  

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:44:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]