I’d meant to get caught up on a number things I’d been meaning to post about… but it was close to 100 degrees today—and like a lot of folks in the Bay Area, I don’t have A/C. Now usually there’s only a 2-3 weeks out of the year where it’s uncomfortable… but those days can really suck.
The good news is that the installing soffit and roof vents, plus replacing the skylights so that they open now does seem to be making a big difference: the house is about 10-15 degrees cooler than the outside temperature and cools down much faster at night, when things cool down rapidly. But it still would be nice to install central air (although not A/C) since having a fan to move air around inside the house would make a big difference, plus the air filter would be better for my allergies compared to throwing open the windows.
My good friend Erica was supposed to be in town on Wednesday—and was finally got to see me perform, which she’s wanted to for ages. But the airlines had other ideas, leaving her stranded one day, in turn forced her to rejigger the rest of her business trip.
It seems like whenever LGBT people try to get anti-discrimination laws passed, the religious bigots invariably trot out the argument that we’re somehow seeking “special rights.” So my hypocrisy alarm went off when I heard that a conservative legal-advocacy group is looking for a church willing to be a test case to challenge IRS tax laws against using the pulpit to endorse political candidates. Now the thing is, churches are perfectly free to engage in pulpit partisanship—as long as they’re willing to give up the exemptions from taxes that the rest of us pay. (A principle even Reagan-appointee courts have upheld.) So who exactly is seeking “special rights”?
While we’re on the subject… It’s not uncommon for religious bigots posing as “reasonable people” to argue that protections for LGBT people are “different” (i.e. less legitimate) than those against racial protections because LGBT people supposedly chose their “lifestyle,” as the bigots usually put it. Sadly it’s too-often an argument put forth by bigoted people of color.
Sadly too, the “it’s not choice” argument we in the LGBT communities too often buy into ourselves, sometimes invoking contorted personal histories to reassure ourselves and others that “it’s not my fault” that I’m [insert descriptor here].” Now before everyone starts firing up the flamethrowers, I do think both sex/gender identity and sexual orientation can—and usually do have—a biological component; and I recognize that the “born that way” argument is in part driven by the way U.S. civil rights law is written—since it generally (and I’ll come back to that point in a minute) holds that innate characteristics are protected and personal choices aren’t. But the thing is, both sex/gender identity and sexual orientation are spectrums—even though our society generally views them as binaries—and while there’s a hard-wired aspect about where one falls on that spectrum, biology isn’t destiny. Which is why the “it’s not a choice” argument always has an Achilles Heel: there’s just too many examples of people choosing to act in ways contrary to their “nature”—from “political lesbians” (some of whom weren’t necessarily sexually attracted to women) to men who engage is same-sex act when they aren’t women available (in prison, among immigrant populations, etc.) to people who choose to remain closeted about their sex/gender identity and/or sexual orientation (even if they pay a heavy emotional cost for doing so).
So we’d be a lot more honest if we acknowledge that choice can play a role in how one’s sex/gender identity and sexual orientation gets expressed. But religion is a choice too and we still see fit to protect people from religious discrimination. Now the religious bigots in the United States would point out that’s because those protections are written into the Constitution. And they’re right. In fact protections against religious discrimination predate by decades (if not centuries) protections against discrimination based on race, sex, pregnancy, national origins, disability or age. But the common thread among all of these is that they involve aspects that are so central to who someone is that we consider them worthy of protection.
If the Framers were willing to protect a “chosen” part of one’s core identity, why shouldn’t we?
Those darn kids… They make me want to cry (in a good way).
It wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment decision that drove Brewster High School student Michael Loscalzo to go to school dressed as a girl.
“Years of taking judgment made me decide to stick up for myself,” said Loscalzo, 17. “All my life, people either said I was weird or that I was gay.”
The Brewster High School sophomore recently revealed his secret about his desire to become a woman by going to class wearing makeup and feminine attire. His choice has reverberated through the halls.
Loscalzo said school officials warned him Friday that he could be suspended if he continued to cross-dress, a claim that administrators denied yesterday.
In a show of support, several students have organized an “Equality Protest” this week, by showing up to school dressed in garments of the opposite sex.
Yesterday, about a dozen teens gathered at a local deli with boys wearing skirts, wigs and dresses and girls donning caps, cargo pants and T-shirts. They said about 60 students cross-dressed yesterday, though school officials said the number was far less.
“We want Mike to feel more comfortable in his surroundings,” said senior Shannon Dodd, 18, one of the organizers. “We’re letting the student body know that it’s OK to dress this way.”...