Taking Sex out of Marriage

You believe in the ballot,
You believe in reform.
You have faith in the elephant and jackass,
And to you, solidarity's a four-letter word.
…
No, I won't take your hand,
And marry the State,
'Cause baby, I'm an anarchist,
And you're a spineless liberal.

I'm not one of those people who won't shut up about how they were a fan of whatever band back before they were famous—those people are terrible; I couldn't agree more—but I was totally a fan of Against Me! back before they were famous.

And I've remained a fan, though it's not easy to explain why. (I've learned from Pandora that bands "similar to" Against Me! are, by and large, bands that produce music suitable only for blasting into the compounds of holed-up dictators and cult leaders.) A lot of it, undoubtedly, is their lyrics, which tend to kind of speed up or slow down or just abruptly stop, according to the rhythm of the song, because otherwise they wouldn't quite fit. It doesn't seem like it should work, but somehow it does, and it adds a thick layer of honesty to everything they record, because why would the words be so forced if they weren't chosen for a reason?

But none of this is to say that I wasn't just as surprised as everyone else by the recent announcement that Against Me! has a new frontwoman, Laura Jane Grace.^[1]

It's fascinating for a number of reasons. Here's one of them:

Gabel will eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace, and will remain married to her wife Heather. "For me, the most terrifying thing about this was how she would accept the news," says Gabel. "But she's been super-amazing and understanding."

I'm not especially interested in delving into their personal lives (aside from, you know, the one immensely personal thing at the center of all this), but Grace and her wife live in Florida, which first banned same-sex marriage in 1977, then banned it some more with the Florida Defense of Marriage Act in 1997, and then found a way to ban it even more in 2008, when the voters added this to the state constitution:

Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

Does that mean Heather and Laura (when/if all the physical and legal hurdles are cleared) will find themselves in an illegal same-sex marriage? Apparently not:^[2]

Though Florida is not one of the six states in the nation that recognize marriages between same-sex partners, Gabel's declaration won't change her marital status either way, according to Lisa Mottet, Director of the Transgender Civil Rights Project at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

"Under established law, marriages are evaluated for their validity at the time of marriage, i.e., the date of the wedding/when the marriage license was signed," she said. "Only divorces, death, and annulments end marriages — gender transition does not end a marriage, nor convert it to a same-sex marriage. If two people were considered different sex at the time of their wedding, they will continue to be considered married until death, divorce, or annulment."

It's funny, in a sort of horrible way. Florida has tried so hard to do away with same-sex marriage, and they still can't quite do it. In fact, it turns out it doesn't matter if the couple gets married before the transition or after—as the law stands today, a transwoman (i.e. male-to-female) can always marry a woman in Florida, but never a man. And a transman can always marry a man, but never a woman.

That precedent comes from Kantaras v. Kantaras, a bitter custody battle that was litigated at various levels of the court system for seven years until finally—finally—Dr. Phil stepped in and settled the whole thing. But not before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal ruled that the marriage was void ab initio—legally, it had never existed—because legally, this guy was a woman.

More precisely, the court deferred to the legislature:

Until the Florida legislature recognizes sex-reassignment procedures and amends the marriage statutes to clarify the marital rights of a postoperative transsexual person, we must adhere to the common meaning of the statutory terms and invalidate any marriage that is not between persons of the opposite sex determined by their biological sex at birth.

The same legislature, by the way, that had made it possible for Michael Kantaras to change his name, change the sex on his birth certificate, obtain a male driver's license and a male passport, and become the legal adoptive father of his children. And the same legislature that, by that point, had banned same-sex marriage twice. Clearly, what they wanted was for Michael Kantaras to marry a man instead of a woman.

What is the goal here, anyway? The legislatures that enacted Florida's marriage statutes in 1977 and 1997; the nearly five million Floridians who voted for Amendment 2 in 2008; the lawmakers and voters responsible for dozens of similar laws and constitutional amendments across the country—were they all engaged in a concerted effort to make transgender marriage a strange patchwork of contradiction and injustice?

No, they just didn't care. It's all about gay marriage. That the transgender legal situation is such a mess is merely collateral damage.

Granted, if lawmakers and voters did take on transgender marriage directly, I can't say I'd be all that optimistic about how it would go,^[3] but at least we'd be talking about the broader consequences of legislating. And at least we'd be confronting the reality that, by drawing the line between opposite-sex and same-sex, we're making the false presumption that sex is easy to define.

So if nothing else, a change in semantics is in order. Maybe the end result would be the same regardless, but the fight shouldn't be for legalizing same-sex marriage. It should be for taking sex out of marriage altogether.^[4]

In conclusion…

1. A note on names and pronouns: There are countless style guides and media kits and what-not out there, and I ignore pretty much all of them. My rules are, use the name and pronoun the person would prefer; if it's not clear, guess, and try not to be a jerk about it; and resolve any lingering uncertainty in favor of what will be more accurate in the future, because whatever it is I'm writing, it will be read by a lot more people in the future than in the past.
    (If you're at all curious about how muddled and combative these debates can get, even (or perhaps especially) among the well-intentioned, check out the talk section of Grace's Wikipedia page. After a while I started just staring blankly as I scrolled down. Pretty sure I caught a "cissexist" in there somewhere.)

2. This has to be the first time I've been to MTV.com in at least a decade. Naturally, it was because they were the ones who bothered to track down an answer to an interesting and tricky legal question. If you read on in the article you'll find expressions of support for Grace from Tegan and Sara, Senses Fail, Broadway Calls, Toxicbreed, I Am the Avalanche, Motel Life, Circa Survive, Gaslight Anthem, CM Punk, and Fun.. I haven't looked into how many of those are actual things. I'm guessing about half.

3. Not optimistic in the short term, that is. But eventually it'll seem ridiculous that we even had to argue about this. As a friend tweeted after the North Carolina vote last week:

Voters in NC are not bigots, rednecks, or evil. They're just wrong. Love will overcome all, it always has.

4. If this blog were a hacky stand-up comedian or an unimaginative sitcom, there would be a lame joke here. Good thing it isn't.

A Deep-Seated Resistance to (Sex) Change

To most conservatives, gender is a fairly binary concept, and to a smaller-but-still-significant number of conservatives, a person's physical sex shouldn't (or can't) ever be changed. And yet, millions around the world claim to be living proof that gender is not binary, and a smaller-but-still-significant number of people make the difficult choice to transition from one physical sex to the other. When conservatives are reminded that transgender and transsexual people do, in fact, exist, the result, all too often, is an abundance of disrespect, nastiness, and scare quotes:

The members of the so-called Transgender/Gender queer taskforce, like most other gay activists, are simply whining emotional misfits who are trying to terrorize decent society under the guise of "tolerance" and "diversity."

—————

It doesn't make us "tolerant" or "compassionate" to pretend that people have something they don't or that they are something they're not. It makes us liars. It's enabling a delusion, and it's very, very silly.

—————

According to most estimates, "transgender" individuals account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of the population. Yet, [Americans for Truth president Peter] LaBarbera said, they have convinced the Obama administration to affirm their position that gender is fluid and changeable. "We should consider what transgender activism is about," he said, "which is essentially recognizing civil rights based on gender confusion." ^[1]

—————

How would you react if your daughter were forced by a school to share showers and toilet rooms with a transgender? I would have raised hell about such sexual insanity – as I will if either of my two granddaughters is ordered into such absolute idiocy.

That's some awful stuff, but it's practically polite compared to—who else?—Moonbattery:

Typical of moonbat thugs who use our deranged, hyper-politicized legal system to club anyone who opposes their agenda, [Lana] Lawless is trying to prevent LPGA from holding any events in California until it knuckles under and allows male perverts who surgically mutilate themselves to perform as women.

The obvious question, then, is where is this coming from? If I were a typical radical, agenda-pushing liberal—you know, the ones conservatives have learned to completely tune out—I'd say conservatives bash transgender people because it's one of the only groups a person can still get away with bashing. Overt racism has been out of bounds for several decades now. Women, Muslims, and the handicapped have started sticking up for themselves. Hell, 21st-century conservatives can't even call a sleazy politician a "faggot" without starting a shitstorm. Insults hurled at transgender people, though? Barely a blip on the Thought Police's radar. Sure, a few people will get upset, but many, many more will gleefully join in, adding their own fuel to the stupid, hateful fire.

I'd also say conservatives bash transgender people because they're too narrow-minded to entertain challenges to their willfully-primitive views on gender and sex. In their world, men are men, women are women, and the still-growing mountain of evidence that men are sometimes women, women are sometimes men, and a lot of people are a little of both is nothing but a liberal plot to force deviant lifestyles on real Americans who just want to be left alone. If conservatives made an effort to understand the lives of people who are different from them, they might start to come around, but they don't want to make that effort—they just want to tell those people to stop being so different.

And finally, I'd be unable to resist saying at least some transgender-bashing is merely a sad reflection of the basher's profound insecurity with their own gender and/or sexuality. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people are out there partying, marching in parades, and just generally having a great time being themselves,^[2] and that bothers the hell out of some conservatives, because they wish it was them. And they hate that about themselves, so they dig in, hoping to bury those thoughts under layer upon layer of hate. It's a coping mechanism that has been employed over and over throughout human history, with an overall success rate of approximately zero (give or take).

But I'm not a typical radical, agenda-pushing liberal—I'm tactful and diplomatic, and I'm willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming the worst, and I'm not even really a liberal. So I won't say those things. Instead, I'll say this: I don't know why conservatives have so much trouble with transgender people. No idea. It's baffling. I do have a few theories, but, in the interest of me not coming across as a typical radical, agenda-pushing liberal, I'm not going to say them, so let's just move on.

In articles about the election, immigration, and an assortment of outrageous nonsense, I shared some thoughts from the Internet's most civility-impaired commenters, the idea being to illustrate that conservatives are more than capable of the same absurd extremism they seem to think is the exclusive domain of liberals (and, you know, to laugh at dumb people being dumb). I'm tempted to do it here, too, but the available material is pretty damn horrible (as it would have to be, to top what's in the actual articles). Transgender issues inspire already-rotten people to strive for—and often achieve—shocking new levels of rottenness.

That said, I do kind of like one of the comments on this story:

I have an 8 year old son and a 10 year old daughter and I can tell you – THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!!!!!

That's right, somewhere out there one boy and one girl are different, so quit wasting your time, Science! Your services aren't needed here!^[3]

1. Four thoughts about the "less than a fraction of 1 percent" thing. First, the number wouldn't be appreciably less credible if it had been chosen at random (which, really, it might've been). Second, whatever the actual number is, it would undoubtedly be higher if not for scumbags like LaBarbera who devote their lives to making the world as unpleasant as possible for those who are openly transgender. Third, I'm no mathematician, but wouldn't less than a fraction of 1 percent be, at most, zero? And fourth, how, exactly, is "there aren't very many of them" an argument against civil rights?

2. The idea that the GLBT community is mostly a bunch of flamboyant, in-your-face parade-marchers is, of course, a misconception, but good luck explaining that to the average Moonbattery reader.

3. Also, I know it's a longshot, but wouldn't it be great if this person has not zero, but two transgender children? (Answer: No, because those kids would probably have to face their gender issues without the help and support of an understanding family, the difficulty of which I can't even imagine. But still.)

Attention Conservatives! This Is Your Argument Against Anti-Discrimination Laws

In April and May of this year, the Commission of Leon County, Florida (which consists primarily of Tallahassee)^[1] debated a Human Rights Ordinance. The law proposed to do a number of things—most controversially, creating a legal cause of action for victims of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

I attended a preliminary public comment session, and then the meeting a few weeks later when the vote was held. Each time the room was packed. Hundreds of Leon County residents—and the commissioners themselves—spoke for or against the ordinance. A few of the arguments that were made against it:

• It's a slippery slope! Next, we'll be prohibiting discrimination based on obesity, attractiveness, height, etc.^[2]
• It will infringe on a preacher's God-given right to preach that homosexuality is a sin.^[3]
• It will somehow diminish the rights of heterosexuals.^[4]
• It will harm business owners by generating—or merely by threatening—frivolous lawsuits.^[5]

And so on. It was a fascinating and enlightening experience, and it led indirectly to the creation of this blog. Anti-discrimination laws are fundamentally incompatible with my libertarian principles, but as I watched and listened I had the same thought over and over: Screw my principles—I don't want to be on the same side as the people who oppose this law.

When I figured out why, I sat down and wrote the following—the argument that should have been made:

"We all want to live in a society that treats people as equals. Our opposition to this ordinance is rooted not in a desire to discriminate, but in the belief that we don't need an ordinance to be that kind of society. And now, as we find ourselves on the verge of yet another government intrusion on individual freedom, we are prepared to prove it—to show our community that when we talk about how much we oppose discrimination and value equal treatment under the law, we mean it.

"Some of us, inevitably, will continue to resist. That's ok. We believe private business owners have the right to hire and fire whoever they want, or do business with whoever they want, for any reason, and we believe in freedom of speech, no matter how offensive. Yet we have no doubt that any opposition will be fleeting, because it will be penalized not in the courts, but in the marketplace of ideas. Businesses that discriminate will be boycotted, rental properties that discriminate will be vacated, and churches that preach hate will be abandoned in favor of churches that preach love.

"Some of us will make this commitment out of respect for human dignity, and some of us will make it because the strongest society is one where all people are not only allowed, but encouraged, to reach their maximum potential. For many of us, these two reasons are one and the same—we recognize that the free market we so strongly believe in is undermined by discrimination and hatred.

"Some of us are not convinced that widespread discrimination exists in our community, but there are a lot of people here who clearly believe it does. Regardless of who is right, we understand the temptation for the government to step in. But we also understand how much this law would cost us—and not only in terms of a simple dollar amount. The greater costs are the loss of liberty, and the shame of knowing that our community has reached the point that we need to be told, under threat of forcible seizure of everything we've earned to provide for ourselves and our families, to act like decent human beings.

"Opposition to a law is not the same as opposition to equality. In fact, we will accomplish more without this law than we ever could with it, because the most meaningful equality is that which does not need to be mandated. In that spirit, we respectfully ask for one more chance to prove that we, as private individuals, can do our part to build a community we can be proud of. A community that judges people on the content of their character—and nothing else. And we will build that community not because we have to, but because we want to."

If conservatives really want to stem the tide of government intervention in private lives, this is what they need to say.^[6] No one did. The ordinance passed, and I was happy to see it happen. What makes me sad is how sorely it was needed.

1. Official motto (according to Wikipedia): "Florida's Capital City." Exciting!

2. Often accompanied by the scientifically-dubious (to put it nicely) argument that homosexuality is a choice, and it's ridiculous to allow lawsuits based on groups people can join voluntarily—because other protected characteristics, such as, say, religion and marital status, aren't voluntary at all, right?

3. It doesn't. Religious organizations are exempt. But whatever—that's not the point.

4. It doesn't. If a straight person is fired for being straight, the ordinance gives him or her the right to sue, too. But whatever—that's not the point.

5. Alright, that one's hard to argue with, but anyone who makes it is either being disingenuous, or has their priorities totally out of whack.

6. It would help, obviously, if they also mean it, but just saying it would be a nice start.

Pseudo-Intellectual Nonsense

Conservatives can’t stand the way liberals seem to think they can prove anything merely by spouting pseudo-intellectual nonsense. And maybe they (conservatives) are right. We (liberals) do, on occasion, obfuscate our arguments through superfluous verbiage, which sometimes leads to ill-supported conclusions.

The problem is, pseudo-intellectualism is difficult to criticize. There are basically two angles. Many conservatives take the classic “Hey, egghead! Yer not as smart as you think you are!” approach. Others, however, can’t seem to resist fighting fire with more of the same alluring, seductive fire. That is, armed only with an inability to understand irony and a dangerous lack of self-awareness, they attempt to expose and discredit liberal pseudo-intellectualism with equal and opposite pseudo-intellectual nonsense of their own.

And that brings me to the specific nonsense that inspired this post. It seems a handful of concerned citizens have decided that, as seen in his recent speech about the oil spill, Barack Obama uses lengthy, “professorial” sentences that most Americans apparently have trouble following.

Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence "added some difficulty for his target audience," [the Global Language Monitor's Paul J.J.] Payack said.

I won’t get into the absurdity of equating sentence length with semantic density, because Mark Liberman of the Language Log already did an excellent job of it:

I think we can all agree that those are shockingly long professor-style sentences for a president to be using, especially in addressing the nation after a disaster. Why, they were almost as long as the ones that President George W. Bush, that notorious pointy-headed intellectual, used in his 9/15/2005 speech to the nation about Hurricane Katrina, where I count 3283 words in 140 sentences, for an average of 23.45 words per sentence! And we all remember how upset the press corps got about the professorial character of that speech!

But this sort of “Obama uses lots o’ words; he must think he’s smarter’n me” crap is only moderately insane. What this story really needs is for some imaginative commentator to use the whole thing as an excuse to question Obama’s masculinity. Take it away, Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post:

Obama may prove to be our first male president who pays a political price for acting too much like a woman.

Her basis for this? That 13% of Obama’s speech was passive-voiced. The many linguistically-dubious aspects of this are addressed, once again, by Mark Liberman, but my focus is on the political rhetoric.

First of all, is this supposed to be an insult? I think it is—not so much because Parker has any objection to the idea of a female president, but because she sees something “wrong” with a male exhibiting (what she perceives to be) female characteristics. Conservatives become confused and defensive at any indication that gender is not as binary as they like to think it is.^[1]

Gender issues aside, I’m most alarmed by how eagerly conservatives embrace this kind of idiocy when it supports what they already believe. Liberals do the same thing, of course, but they’re the ones who make “unjustified claims of expertise, authority or knowledge” and “ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false.”^[2] Conservatives are supposed to be better than that, right?^[3]

1. How’s that for a wild generalization! Not to worry, I’ll write more on the issue in the future.

2. Have I mentioned how much I love Conservapedia as a source for hyperbolic and outlandish (and sometimes blatantly hypocritical) stereotypes?

3. Wow, is this an unfocused article. Oh well, it should be useful as a springboard for follow-up posts on a number of tangentially-related topics. By the way, this article (not counting the indented quotes) averages 17.6 words per sentence. I'm not especially good at identifying passive constructions, but I see at least three or four. I don't know what that says about my masculinity.