ZackFord Blogs | News, analysis, and commentary on LGBT rights, atheism, religious privilege, higher education, student affairs, and related social justice issues.
Zack and Peterson are back to talk about a new (old) product on the market: celibacy! Also known as “ex-gay lite.” Since the ex-gay movement has largely crumbled in recent years and it’s no longer convincing to argue that sexual orientation can be changed, conservatives are now encouraging gay, lesbian, and bisexual people to just […]
Zack and Peterson have new stories to tell about foreign worlds. Peterson’s new projects addressing climate change are not getting the warmest reception in LGBT spaces, nor are there many LGBT people at the climate change conferences he’s attended. Likewise, Zack attended his first atheist conference, speaking at the American Atheists national conference in April, […]
Zack and Peterson are together for the holidays, and rather than yak about Utah or Duck Dynasty, the two follow the travels of the afterbirth of Jesus in the Lost Gospel of the Holy Placenta. Enjoy this lighthearted and only slightly blasphemous holiday episode and let us know what you want to hear from us […]
Two episodes within less than a month’s time! It’s like some government shutdown miracle! This week’s episode is dedicated to talking about that “religious liberty” concept conservatives are always throwing around. What do they mean when they say it and how are they trying to use it do keep discriminating against LGBT people? Does a […]
This post continues a dialogue with Brandon McGinley of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, who opposes transgender nondicrimination protections because sex-segregated locker rooms allow for “camaraderie” while reducing the “sexual nature” of a space where there is usually nudity. I countered at ThinkProgress that the safety of transgender students, like those protected by California’s new law, […]
Thanks to the flattery of Ben, Zack and Peterson found time for a new episode. (It may have helped that Zack is under the weather.) Among the topics are Christians are “not all like that” (NALT), how the Pope really is like that, and Peterson’s second wedding — don’t worry, it’s to the same person […]
This episode features Peterson Toscano’s tell-all about Andrew Marin and The Marin Foundation, best known for encouraging Christians to attend Pride events holding signs apologizing for how churches have harmed LGBT people. Zack listens as Peterson shares his roller coaster of confusing about whether or not The Marin Foundation is actually helping build bridges between […]
Not only are Zack and Peterson truly back, but for once they’re actually in the same room! Broadcasting from Zack’s apartment in Washington, DC, we discussed the epic change up at Exodus International — namely, Alan Chambers’s apology for the ex-gay ministry and announcement last week that he was shutting it down. A big chapter […]
Inspired by Arrested Development, Zack and Peterson have returned from their indeterminate hiatus. Peterson discusses the passing of his father, and Zack offers a few updates from the blogging world. Peterson is also now a climate activist, and rightfully so! If you’re excited that we’re back, you should leave some comments, or tweet us, and […]
It’s been a long time since I’ve written here at ZFb, because I find my role as LGBT Editor at ThinkProgress provides me the venue to say most of what I feel needs to be said. Today is an exception, as I feel the need to write a personal response to an attack I received […]
Zack and Peterson have new stories to tell about foreign worlds. Peterson’s new projects addressing climate change are not getting the warmest reception in LGBT spaces, nor are there many LGBT people at the climate change conferences he’s attended. Likewise, Zack attended his first atheist conference, speaking at the American Atheists national conference in April, and similarly observed that queer people were simply underrepresented. What’s it like being queer in these accepting yet strangely uninclusive spaces? Oh, and Marvin Bloom’s around somewhere too.
Zack and Peterson are together for the holidays, and rather than yak about Utah or Duck Dynasty, the two follow the travels of the afterbirth of Jesus in the Lost Gospel of the Holy Placenta. Enjoy this lighthearted and only slightly blasphemous holiday episode and let us know what you want to hear from us in 2014. Also, make sure to go see Zack in New York City Monday night and check out all of Peterson’s new upcoming projects!
Two episodes within less than a month’s time! It’s like some government shutdown miracle! This week’s episode is dedicated to talking about that “religious liberty” concept conservatives are always throwing around. What do they mean when they say it and how are they trying to use it do keep discriminating against LGBT people? Does a Quaker school have to hire a Neo-Nazi? Zack and Peterson break it all down. We had a little technical glitch or two, so apologies for that, but it shouldn’t interfere too much with enjoying our delightful banter and brilliant insights.
This post continues a dialogue with Brandon McGinley of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, who opposes transgender nondicrimination protections because sex-segregated locker rooms allow for “camaraderie” while reducing the “sexual nature” of a space where there is usually nudity. I countered at ThinkProgress that the safety of transgender students, like those protected by California’s new law, trumps such fears. McGinley has written a follow-up, and though back-and-forth debates aren’t conducive to how we publish at TP, I wanted to continue the dialogue with him here.
His primary concern seems to be genitals:
To be clear, I am not arguing that transgender people should go in the woods. All the examples I gave of the troubling implications of this type of legislation were of people who appeared as one sex being granted access to facilities reserved for the opposite sex. I didn’t address the question of what facilities people who have undergone sex change surgery should use because, to my understanding, it is not a source of controversy.
The common sense answer is this: Folks should use the facilities where they would appear, regardless of their own convictions about their gender, most at home, or a private unisex facility. Some gender non-conforming people might prefer to use facilities in accord with their (internal) gender identity, and some other people might be uncomfortable even with a post-op transgender person in the bathroom; though both of these impulses are understandable, this is the type of compromise on which social comity is built. But more than that, it just makes sense given the purpose of sex-segregated facilities to begin with, as I argued in the Public Discourse essay.
First, let me say this: If McGinley believes that transgender people who have had sex-reassignment surgery should be protected from discrimination, I’m glad to hear it. It’s certainly a start. Unfortunately, only about 20 percent of people who identify as trans actually have the surgery. In addition to being too expensive for many trans people (who also tend to experience high rates of poverty thanks to employment discrimination), it also results in losing their reproductive ability. Some trans people find coherence with their gender identity without making this very personal sacrifice. It’s my hope that McGinley is not in favor of forcing people to be sterilized in order to participate equally in society; perhaps he can clarify this point in another response.
Moreover, let’s talk a little bit about appearance. Perhaps McGinley doesn’t appreciate the definition of gender identity, which is an enduring aspect of identity. It’s not a switch that is flipped daily. In other words, there’s nothing about gender identity protections that enables people to “fake” being the other gender just to sneak into the other restroom. They are designed to protect people who live their whole lives according to their gender identity.
Given his caveat for people who’ve had gender reassignment surgery, it thus seems that he is defining “appearance” entirely by genitals. But that’s really not what appearance means to most transgender people. If we’re talking how safe other people feel in the locker room, let’s take a look at a few test cases.
Davis is transgender, which means he was assigned female at birth, but he identifies as a man and has used hormone therapy as a part of his transition. I think most people would look at him and agree he sure looks like a man. Now, I don’t know what surgeries Davis may or may not have had, and it’s frankly not anybody’s business but his, and it’s an irrelevant point to the rest of his appearance. I don’t think anybody looks at a bald man with a beard and concludes that he must use the women’s room. (I’m pretty sure Davis won’t mind me using him as an example like this since he uses himself as an example in media appearances all the time — thanks Masen!)
Just to provide a reverse example, here’s Jenna Talackova, who placed in the Top 12 in last year’s Miss Universe Canada contest:
Which locker room would Talackova be safer in, the men’s or the women’s? I think it’s fair to objectively say that she is quite a beautiful woman, and subjecting her to a men’s locker room because she was assigned male at birth is most definitely not in the best interest of her safety and well-being.
According to what I think McGinley is saying though, Davis and Talackova should have to drop trou and let someone else assess the current state of their genitals in order to determine which facility they’re allowed to use. Exposing transgender people to that kind of skepticism and humiliation surely cannot be the only solution “on which social comity is built.” And what exactly does that “social comity” mean, exactly? That women won’t have to see a trans woman’s penis? What exactly is the problem that really needs to be solved? If the answer is “safety,” then that’s just an unfounded, prejudiced assumption that trans people are somehow more likely to be dangerous or predatory. If the answer is, “trans people’s bodies are icky,” that’s outright intolerance. And if the answer is just that people should never have to see a genital that they don’t have one of themselves, that’s an argument with no foundation whatsoever.
McGinley also defends the idea that imposing heteronormative standards is not a problematic thing to do:
One might object that this second point is heteronormative, and indeed it is because the world is heteronormative. We can never completely de-sexualize any aspect of the human experience, but we can try to minimize the sexual nature of places and experiences that ought not to be sexual. And the fact of the matter is that opposite-sex sexual attraction is the norm in the human species, both in terms of raw numbers and its orientation toward procreation. Nude men and women comingling is more sexually-charged, more often than nude men or nude women comingling. Only the most abstract and obdurate sexual theoretician could deny this fact.
We should clarify some language here. The world is not heteronormative; it is simply hetero-majoritarian. Imposing the norms of a ruling class of people — say, white people — on a smaller segment of the population — say, African Americans — is not really a precedent that is easily defended.
To be fair, I do see some merit to what he is saying, at least to the extent that I am not advocating for gender-neutral locker rooms. But heteronormativity doesn’t justify discrimination against transgender people. McGinley doesn’t seem to have any problem letting gay men use men’s locker rooms or lesbian women use women’s locker rooms, so I don’t see how this argument warrants any different kind of policy against transgender people. In particular, transgender people identify as something other than straight about 77 percent of the time; in fact, there is an incredible diversity of sexual orientations within the trans community. There’s really no valid way to justify that trans people would somehow add to how “sexually charged” a locker room is. If anything, this assumption once again echoes the prejudiced beliefs that trans people are somehow more deviant or are somehow a threat to “safety” — stigma, not “common sense.”
Despite his best efforts, I still don’t see a compelling argument against gender identity nondiscrimination protection that isn’t simply based on some degree of discomfort regarding transgender people. Discomfort alone does not justify depriving trans people of equal access to society, including the freedom to use the restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender. If there’s anything I’ve learned from the trans people in my life, it’s that their genitals are pretty much the least interesting thing about them.
Thanks to the flattery of Ben, Zack and Peterson found time for a new episode. (It may have helped that Zack is under the weather.) Among the topics are Christians are “not all like that” (NALT), how the Pope really is like that, and Peterson’s second wedding — don’t worry, it’s to the same person as the first. But maybe there will be a third or more! There are lots of different state options to choose from. There’s also an interjection about foot cream, but it’s probably lacking in validity. If you like what you hear and want to hear more, leave lots of comments and shower us with praise. Positive reinforcement works!
This episode features Peterson Toscano’s tell-all about Andrew Marin and The Marin Foundation, best known for encouraging Christians to attend Pride events holding signs apologizing for how churches have harmed LGBT people. Zack listens as Peterson shares his roller coaster of confusing about whether or not The Marin Foundation is actually helping build bridges between evangelical Christians and the LGBT community — as it claims — or possibly humoring some dangerous ideas. The journey includes intersections with the work of Warren Throckmorton and Mark Yarhouse, both of whom have connections to the ex-gay movement. Are bridges being built, or are there reasons to be skeptical about this work… or both?
Here’s some more information about what we talked about this week:
» Mark Yarhouse’s own reporting attempting to validate ex-gay therapy found that even those living an ex-gay life still admitted their orientations hadn’t changed.
Not only are Zack and Peterson truly back, but for once they’re actually in the same room! Broadcasting from Zack’s apartment in Washington, DC, we discussed the epic change up at Exodus International — namely, Alan Chambers’s apology for the ex-gay ministry and announcement last week that he was shutting it down. A big chapter in the shaming of the gay community has come to an end, but what does it mean for evangelical Christians? Our conversation dives deep to see what will come of the end of this historically harmful conversation.
Inspired by Arrested Development, Zack and Peterson have returned from their indeterminate hiatus. Peterson discusses the passing of his father, and Zack offers a few updates from the blogging world. Peterson is also now a climate activist, and rightfully so! If you’re excited that we’re back, you should leave some comments, or tweet us, and let us know you want us to keep coming back.
It’s been a long time since I’ve written here at ZFb, because I find my role as LGBT Editor at ThinkProgress provides me the venue to say most of what I feel needs to be said. Today is an exception, as I feel the need to write a personal response to an attack I received on me and my family from a semi-prominent spokesperson for the anti-equality movement.
This past week, the Republican National Committee approved a resolution affirming its opposition to same-sex marriage. I debunked that resolution earlier in the week, pointing out that its only foundation was the “bullshit” junk-science study on gay parenting by Mark Regnerus as well as a number of assertions that simply amount to declarations of heterosexual supremacy. This provoked a fairly heated response from one Robert Oscar Lopez.
Here’s what I know about Lopez’s story: he identifies as bisexual but has disowned his gay side, he blames his lesbian parents for his social ineptness, and he seems all too happy to help out groups who oppose same-sex marriage — at the state, federal, and international levels. Notably, he was among the featured speakers at the National Organization for Marriage’s “March for Marriage” last month.
Lopez’s primary talking point is that he was damaged by same-sex parenting and he wants to save other children the same fate. As my fellow blogger Joe Jervis describes his argument, “Nobody Likes Me,” and he makes it over and over. His argument against my “reckless dismissal” of the RNC resolution was similar:
If you don’t see flashing red lights and a gigantic billboard saying “BAD IDEA” when you contemplate gay couples buying other adults out of their offspring and then raising kids as if one of the biological parents never existed, then there’s really no point in discussing the ethics of parenting. Please don’t call in the APA to settle the matter for you.
Zack Ford discredits Doug Mainwaring’s line that the same-sex marriage movement is turning children into “chattel” to serve the selfish demands of adults. Zack, how do gay men and lesbians come to be exclusive parents of children? They pay men for their sperm and women for use of their wombs, then pay them to go away. This is essentially buying other human beings as property because certain adults — not always gays, but here we are talking about gay adults — care more about having kids than about the kids’ right to half their ancestry. What part of “chattel” or “selfish” is unclear?
Mainwaring, I should point out, is another of NOM’s go-to “gays against gay marriage” — except they like to leave out the part that he’s a Tea Party activist essentially living an ex-gay life with a wife and children. Mainwaring and Lopez may both have sexual orientations that aren’t exclusively heterosexual, but if they’ve disavowed those identities except when it’s politically expedient, it’s hard to credit them as members of the LGBT community.
At any rate, I think Lopez’s argument is pretty offensive on its face and doesn’t require a whole lot of analysis on my part. It’s worth noting that he pits his own testimony and one fraudulent sociologist against the consensus of all psychological, psychiatric, and sociological groups. To prove his point, he made the following suggestion to me and my colleagues at ThinkProgress:
Maybe Zack’s compadres should talk to adoptees and people conceived with anonymous sperm donors or surrogate mothers. While some are unaffected by the dislocation from their biological origins, many are haunted and scarred. (As a descendant of slaves, I am haunted and scarred because my ancestors were cut off from me.)
But here’s the thing: I was adopted. I’ve also gotten to know a lot of other people who were adopted, as well as children of same-sex couples. As far as I know, none of us are “haunted and scarred.” I know essentially nothing about my blood-parents, but you know what? I know a lot about my actual parents — the ones I’ve known my whole life — and about their ancestors and whatnot. Just because I don’t share their genes doesn’t make me scarred. It’s actually just kind of cool. When I go to my cousin’s wedding next month, I’m not going to feel somehow ostracized from everyone there just because we have a few different strands of DNA. Family is family.
And I’ll be honest, while I think knowing about your past can be interesting and fulfilling, I don’t know that it’s healthy to feel like you need that information to define yourself and live your own life. I feel bad that Lopez doesn’t know anything about his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather — and obviously slavery was an egregious human atrocity — but is that what’s really holding him back in life?
That might be kind of a harsh personal challenge, but he did just insinuate that my parents were the equivalent slave-traders for adopting me. And given I’m also a gay man who someday hopes to have my own family, he also seems to think that I’m going to “buy” children for selfish reasons that will somehow impede their identity development.
Here are a couple questions I have for Lopez:
Were my (heterosexual) parents “selfish” for wanting to have a child in the first place?
Was my mom “selfish” when she put her body through hell (a.k.a. in vitro fertilization) trying to have a child?
Were my parents “selfish” when they adopted me after my mother failed to conceive?
Given you apparently oppose adoption, does that mean you fervently support a woman’s right to choose an abortion?
What I find most interesting about arguments like Lopez’s is how easy it is to see how they are the last remnants of past anti-gay talking points. It used to be that same-sex couples would either abuse their children or somehow turn them gay. Nowadays, the supposed threat to children is that they might just learn in school that same-sex families exist. The Regnerus study — and its knock-off imitations — are a last-ditch effort to try to convince people that there are consequences for the kids of same-sex couples. Now NOM is stuck arguing against adoption, suggesting the children of same-sex couples will resent their parents, and Lopez’s icing on the cake is that they will be deprived of “half their ancestry.” Is that compelling to anybody?
It just strikes me as sad that these groups have such antipathy against gays and lesbians that they actually have lost sight of what’s best for children. Adoption and foster care are good for children who don’t have parents to care for them. Marriage is good for same-sex couples and their children so that they have the same legal and financial protections as other families. Perhaps Lopez is just so troubled by the conflicting values he’s faced throughout his life that he’s lost sight of these common sense realities. I sincerely hope he can find a way to feel better about himself, his past, and his identity that doesn’t require attacking families like mine — both the one in which I was raised and the one I plan to raise myself one day.
It’s been a long time since I’ve written here at ZFb, because I find my role as LGBT Editor at ThinkProgress provides me the venue to say most of what I feel needs to be said. Today is an exception, as I feel the need to write a personal response to an attack I received on me and my family from a semi-prominent spokesperson for the anti-equality movement.