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.)

Opponents of the DREAM Act: Evil or Stupid?

As I've discussed before, I'm a big fan of the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to legal status for certain unauthorized aliens who were brought into the country as minors and intend to go to college or join the military.

I'm also a big fan of the principle of reciprocity:

[I]n the context of opinions and debate, the principle of reciprocity states that we should respect the reasonableness and the goodwill of those with whom we disagree, and to treat them with civility, even if we judge their opinions to be unreasonable and/or their views to be unjust or immoral.
…
If you assume the worst of someone only because of an opinion different than yours, then you’re being an intellectually dishonest asshole.

So, while I disagree with the (mostly conservative) opposition to the DREAM Act, I'd like to believe opponents are motivated by a sincere evaluation of the bill's merits, which isn't entirely implausible. The DREAM Act's benefits are clear, but—in a departure from the impeccable legislation we've come to expect from the legislative branch—it also has its share of problems.^[1] Any member of Congress who votes against it, then, should have little trouble explaining why the bill is flawed, and why he or she feels the negatives outweigh the positives. Let's start with Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX):

I am sympathetic to the young, illegal immigrant children who were brought here by their parents. Because their parents disregarded America's immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. However, this bill actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws. Once the DREAM Act's amnesty recipients become citizens and turn 21, if they haven't already they can sponsor their illegal immigrant parents, spouse, or children for legalization, who can then sponsor others, resulting in chain migration that will further hurt American workers and American taxpayers.

I hear this one a lot, and it's nonsense. To say that DREAM Act beneficiaries will be able to "sponsor their illegal immigrant parents" is an inherent contradiction. They will, of course, be able to sponsor their legal immigrant parents, via the legal process of which conservatives are so fond (with its 15- to 18-year waiting lists for most Mexican applicants). But if the parents are already here illegally, nothing can be done for them until they leave. On top of that, if they leave after having been here illegally for a year or more, there's a ten-year prohibition on even applying for a visa. By the time those hurdles have been cleared, I'd say it's a little unfair—that is, even more unfair than usual—to call the parents "illegal."

Lamar Smith's apparent belief that family-sponsored visas are a low-hassle way for unauthorized aliens to obtain legal status is, I think it's safe to say, incompatible with reality. That raises the question, is he trying to be misleading on purpose, or does he simply not know the basics of U.S. immigration policy? I don't have an answer to that, but, in Smith's defense, a lot can be forgotten in 14 years, which is how long it's been since he wrote the damn law.^[2]

Moving on, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA):

The DREAM Act specifically focuses on promising young foreigners a bright future if their parents choose to break the law. This will unquestionably encourage desperate parents to bring their children, perhaps millions of them, across our borders illegally.

Also a popular criticism, and not quite as non-sensical, but definitely misleading. Presumably, Rohrabacher's point is that in the future aliens will cross the border in the hope that similar legislation will be passed while they're here (because it's going so smoothly this time around!). In other words, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's being more vague than dumb, because the DREAM Act unambiguously excludes anyone who wasn't already in the country at least five years before its enactment. Desparate as those future parents may be to get their kids across the border, they're going to have a tough time doing it in 2005 or earlier (and if they can pull that off, we should probably just let them stay).

Again, Rohrabacher surely knows about the five-year provision, but I bet a lot of casual observers—especially those inclined to take his side on this—do not, and I'm just cynical enough to wonder if maybe his vagueness is intentional—calculated to make the Act sound much scarier than it really is. Regardless, it's a counter-productive omission. Instead of making me think about the dangerous-precedent argument (which, presented appropriately, could be somewhat compelling—not that there isn't a counter-argument), it makes me wonder why Rohrabacher doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.

Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA):

According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 2 million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. That number is not too difficult to imagine given that H.R. 5281 would allow these individuals, once they are naturalized and become 21 years of age, to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their immediate relatives with no numerical cap. We call that chain migration. In fact, they could each bring in something like 179 other individuals.

Really? A newly-legalized alien could bring in 179 relatives? That's such an oddly-specific number. Do you have 179 parents, spouses, children, and siblings, Phil Gingrey? Because I have four.

Surprisingly, that's not the most ridiculous part of Gingrey's speech (well, it might turn out to be, if I ever figure out where that number came from). Even worse is that he sees sponsorship of immediate relatives as "exploit[ing] our broken system." Because that's what's wrong with the system—all those nefarious foreigners applying for visas with 15- to 18-year back-ups and patiently waiting for the paperwork to go through.

Representative Timothy Johnson (R-IL):

It is an affront and a sobering reality to the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren who are going to pay this bill to the tune of billions of dollars over the future. It is also a reality to the 10 percent of Americans who are unemployed who realize that the effect on the infrastructure of America in this bill is going to be absolutely negative with respect to Social Security benefits, jobs, loans, health care, education and otherwise.

I don't have the energy to try to sort out the competing financial guesswork coming from both sides; I just want to point out that Republican Representative Timothy Johnson is one of many conservatives arguing that if we allow roughly one million unauthorized aliens to legally work (which leads to paying taxes), and legally get a college education (which theoretically leads to paying even more taxes, and sometimes to creating new jobs), it would cause billions of dollars of damage to the economy. If that's true, then our economy is fundamentally backward (which it very well may be, for all I know), and we might as well just give up.

Still, maybe I'm being unfair. (See? Always trying to avoid assuming the worst!) Maybe this is just a bunch of meaningless grandstanding for the C-SPAN cameras, which is about as meaningless as grandstanding gets. At least these elected officials aren't actively spreading misinformation for the clear purpose of riling up the public, right?

Here's Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), actively spreading misinformation for the clear purpose of riling up the public:

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who brought them here illegally), the education requirement can be waived altogether. The bill actually allows illegal aliens to get legal status indefinitely without any college or military service.

When he says "hardship," he's abbreviating a bit. The actual standard is "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship," a phrase—Senator Sessions may be surprised to learn—that was not chosen simply because some legislative aide likes the way it sounds. Under current law, one of very few ways an unauthorized alien can obtain legal status is by showing that deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a spouse, parent, or child—provided that person is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident (among other requirements). As the language implies, this exceptionally high standard is met only in extremely unusual circumstances. Sessions is upset about a provision that's essentially the same—in that it carries the same high standard—but would also allow DREAM Act-eligible aliens to attempt to show that deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to themselves. Hardly a sweeping reform.

The shot Sessions takes at the parents "who brought them here illegally" is another one for the Evil-or-Stupid file. Granted, the proposed law is poorly written, so he may just be confused, but the existing hardship waiver is poorly written in almost exactly the same way.^[3] Assuming the two are meant to be similarly interpreted, the status of the parents is irrelevant to the DREAM Act debate. If they aren't U.S. citizens or legal residents, they can't be the basis for a hardship waiver under either law. If they've somehow obtained legal status, they can already be the basis for a hardship waiver, regardless of whether the DREAM Act passes.

That's just a small part of the latest version of Sessions' "Ten Things You Need to Know About the DREAM Act." The memos—packed with false and misleading claims—have been picked up by countless conservative news sites (Michelle Malkin, in particular, has been all over them), and appear to have provided the souce material for the speeches made by Sessions' colleagues in the House. Naturally, those already inclined to oppose the Act haven't bothered to question the memos' content (or, even worse, if they have they've been quiet about it).

I'm sure it's clear that I think it's wrong to oppose the DREAM Act, but I hope I've also made it clear that I don't think it's insane to oppose it. Why, then, are conservatives so unwilling to fight it on its merits? In the name of reciprocity, I want to believe they think they are fighting it on its merits—they just have two or three (dozen) facts wrong.^[4] But everything I've seen and heard points, rather overwhelmingly, toward another explanation:

Conservative ideologues love to get worked up about immigration because it's an issue that (a) people know little about, (b) tends to arouse strong emotions, and (c) can be relatively plausibly blamed for any number of unrelated problems.^[5] They know they'll be called out when they go too far, but only by the likes of Media Matters and the American Immigration Council—nobody their followers would actually listen to—so they can pretty much say whatever they want. They make the DREAM Act sound as sinister as possible and in the process portray themselves as patriotic freedom-fighters, protecting America from the terrible menace of foreign-born high-achievers.

Their obvious lack of respect for potential DREAM Act beneficiaries is nothing short of appalling, and their obvious indifference toward honest debate and accurately informing the people they represent is almost as bad—and this just happens to be an issue I know a few things about. Reciprocity be damned—when I hear the same blowhards talking about something less familiar, why should I trust anything they say?

1. An incomplete list:
— Fraud (also an acceptable argument against…anything, really).
— Dangerous precedent.
— Economic impact (projections are all over the map).
— Insufficient time for debate/amendments.
    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of those (or that, even if valid, they outweigh the positives of the bill), just that they aren't total nonsense.

2. From the biography on Lamar Smith's website:

He introduced and successfully advanced the passage of a 1996 immigration reform bill. This legislation was the most far-reaching reform of America’s immigration laws since the 1960s.

Prominently displayed on the main page of the same website, as of this article's writing, is the video of Smith's misinformation-fueled speech on the House floor. His audacity would be impressive if it wasn't so infuriating.

3. Immigration and Nationality Act, §240A(b):

(1) The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
…
(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Sort of looks like the citizen/LPR requirement only applies to children, and not spouses or parents, doesn't it? It could go either way, I suppose, but the settled interpretation is that, to qualify as the basis for a hardship waiver, a spouse or parent must have legal status too. Any chance Sessions has been politely set straight by the ambiguous clause's author, Representative Lamar Smith? Yeah, I doubt it.

4. Another possibility, as always, is that I have it wrong. After all, immigration is complicated, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert, so I'll concede that I may have made a mistake or two. And while I generally endorse the Media Matters and AIC articles I referred to above, I remain wary of anything coming from such a one-sided source (whatever that side may be).
    But for the anti-DREAM Act arguments quoted here—and many, many others I left out—to make sense, there are a lot of things I'd have to be wrong about.

5. Obviously, that goes both ways. Replace "conservative ideologues" with "liberal ideologues" and "immigration" with "tax cuts for the rich," for example.

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.

Our Constitutional Republic

America was founded on the idea that democracy is not an acceptable form of government. Madison, Hamilton, and the rest of the framers of the Constitution understood the reality that, given a choice, people will often act in their own interests rather than the greater good.

It is no coincidence, then, that practically every aspect of our government is designed to preclude abuses at the hands of a like-minded majority. The defining characteristic of that structure, of course, is that we don’t enact or enforce legislation ourselves—we elect people to do it for us. We have even less power to choose the president and vice president—all our votes do is decide who gets to do the electing.

That might’ve been enough for some fledgling republics, but not America. The founders felt the need for one more safeguard—a branch of government composed of our wisest, most objective citizens, empowered to review and overturn legislation without fear of being removed from office by an unhappy electorate.

To put it another way, the judicial branch is charged with the one task that is vital to a functioning society, and impossible in a pure democracy—doing things that are unpopular. Because what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.

But the obvious downside to judicial review is that, sometimes, courts screw up. And why wouldn’t they? Judges are expected to be more knowledgeable and impartial than the average voter, but no one expects them to be infallible. Still, it’s rare for a ruling—even an extremely controversial one—to be blatantly, indisputably wrong. More often, a ruling is counter to a person’s existing worldview, or their understanding of the legal questions involved, or both.

When that happens, the immediate temptation is to accuse the judges of getting caught up in politics and emotion and activism—things that are supposed to be beneath them. The next step is to do something about it. Perhaps the ruling can be appealed, or undone by constitutional amendment. If a similar case can be brought before another judge, maybe a different conclusion would be reached.

And eventually, after all the procedural options have been exhausted, people will just have to accept that, no matter how upset they are, and how much they complain, the courts have made a decision and that’s how things are going to be.

When conservatives start gushing over the Constitution, and our founding principles, and how those principles need to be protected at all costs, this is what they’re talking about. The people have a say in government, but that doesn't mean they can use it to do whatever they want. It all comes down to checks and balances, and just as there are mechanisms in place to keep each branch of government from abusing its power, the judiciary serves as a check on the voting power of the majority. You don’t have to be happy about everything the courts do, but you have to respect the system, because you'll need those same courts to be there when your rights are on the line.

Alright, that was my opening—merely the foundation for the actual content that follows. Here is that content:

All this "how dare they undermine the will of the people!" stuff is absolute bullshit, and conservatives should know better.^[1]

1. Attention Google-searchers: This article is about the recent California federal court decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which Judge Vaughn Walker—finding the state's voter-enacted ban on gay marriage to be a violation of both Due Process and Equal Protection—declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional.