07 July 2006




For shame....

My adopted country has yet to legalise abortion. Because of this, a woman seeking an abortion must cross the border, and most head for the UK.

This, from Salon's Broadsheet:
Among the news flashes we missed in the name of patriotism this week was the British Department of Health's release of the country's abortion statistics for 2005. Among the more distressing statistics was the number of Irish women who traveled to England and Wales to get abortions: 5,585, or an average of 15 a day.

The number represents a small percentage of the annual total of 186,400 U.K. abortions, but it's still pretty grim to think of the thousands of women forced to cross the border to terminate a pregnancy. And because department records only reflect the number of abortions performed on women who list Irish home addresses, rather than the U.K. addresses of friends or family members, the true tally may be higher.

Activists on both sides of the abortion debate sought to frame the statistic; choice advocates argued that Ireland needs to legalize abortion, while antiabortion voices noted that the number of Irish women seeking abortions in the U.K. is on the decline (it was 6,217 in 2004), so there's no need to make it legal back home. (Yes, yes, perfectly logical.) We're with Alliance for Choice spokeswoman Sian Muldowney, who sounded a little weary when she set out Ireland's reproductive-health to-do list: "Ireland needs to face up to its responsibility to Irish men and women to provide a comprehensive sex education strategy, a national sexual health services strategy and safe and legal abortion in Ireland."

In totally unrelated news, Reuters reports that the pope is traveling to Spain this weekend "to glorify traditional family values."
Story, which I've posted in its entirety, here (requires subscription).

Photograph: Samuel Aranda/Getty


Democracy in the Middle East....

But only if Israel and America agree with the election outcome.

As much as Israeli officials have protested their intention NOT to re-occupy Gaza, (see below), it's beginning to look suspiciously like an occupation.
...Yossi Alpher, a military analyst and former Israeli intelligence officer, said that the government and military will be trying to avoid becoming entrenched back in Gaza but they will also face political difficulties in extracting the army.

"They are very well aware of the dangers," he said. "But there are catches in trying to leave. The range [of the rockets] can improve further so you have to keep moving south and you move into highly urban areas, and it begins to look like an occupation again."
In addition to the stated goals of recovering kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit and putting a halt to rocket-fire into Israel, the unstated goal of deposing the democratically elected Hamas government is clearly behind the invasion.
But there are indications of a wider agenda to bury the Hamas-led government. Israel has detained eight Hamas cabinet members and 20 of its MPs, and targeted government infrastructure, including missile attacks on the offices of the prime minister and interior ministry.

"There's a school of thought in the Israeli security establishment that said since the Hamas victory this is going to end up in confrontation and the sooner we pre-empt that conflict the better; remove their leadership, destroy their infrastructure," said Mr Alpher. "That is certainly some of the hidden agenda of this operation but it's not a declared goal. But it could become a declared goal."
Complete story here.

06 July 2006

(Photo, taken at an earlier confrontation, can be found online here.

Why won't the world do something to stop this...?!
...At least 12 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier were killed in sometimes fierce fighting involving shootouts, artillery fire and airstrikes. Most of the deaths were in northern Gaza, although two Palestinian militants were killed in southern Gaza.

After days of sporadic clashes, Israeli forces pushed further into northern Gaza, moving south from the destroyed former Israeli settlements to the outskirts of Beit Lahiya, in the northwestern corner of Gaza, where Palestinian fighters had been preparing earth barricades, explosive charges and shooting positions.
Complete story here.

For decades, Palestinians have been seeking justice by peaceful and by violent means. September 11, 2001 had a much less violent antecedent nearly 31 years before almost to the day. A simultaneous hijacking of four airliners bound from Europe to New York which, if lessons had been heeded, would surely have prevented 2001’s tragedy.

Planned and executed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) the September 6, 1970 hijackings were executed almost flawlessly. Two jets—TWA Flight 741 of Frankfurt and Swissair Flight 100 of Zurich--were forced down at a former RAF airstrip in Jordan called Dawson's Field. A third, Pan American Flight 93 of Amsterdam, too large for Dawson's, landed in Cairo where passengers and crew were evacuated and the plane blown up.

In an eerie parallel to 31 years later, the PFLP’s fourth hijacking attempt was foiled in flight. Pilots on El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam plunged their jet into a dive, toppling the hijackers. An onboard security guard fatally shot one, Californian Patrick Arguello, 27, while passengers overpowered and arrested the other, Leila Khaled. (Still campaigning for Palestine’s liberation, Khaled, 61, addressed Dubliners at an event sponsored by the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign late last year.)

In retaliation, PFLP operatives hijacked a fifth jet on September 9, adding it to the two planes on the ground in Jordan. On September 12, 1970, the three empty airliners were blown up while television crews broadcast the spectacle to the world. Jordan‘s King Hussein responded by declaring martial law, provoking a bloody civil war between Palestinian refugees and the Jordanian army. Some 15,000 people died before Palestinians, under Yassir Arafat, fled Jordan. The bloodbath spawned the infamous Black September Movement responsible for, among other actions, killing 10 Israeli athletes and their coach at the Munich Olympics two years later, again in early September. (The incident recently highlighted by Spielberg in his film, "Munich".)

The PFLP clearly spelled out their motive for the 1970 hijackings to be retribution for American arms-sales to Israel—sales which continue to this day. From its founding in 1948 through 1998, America has given Israel an estimated $83 billion in direct foreign aid—much of which has facilitated arms purchases.

To summarize, in 1970 one person was killed in five hijackings over six days; in 2001, some 3,044 people died in four hijackings in a matter of hours. Only a nation whose citizens are ignorant of history would view the two events as unrelated. Bin Laden and al Qaeda may be many things, but forgetful of history is not one of them.

Indeed, I question if U.S. leaders are so forgetful, including “Why-do-they-hate-us?” President Bush. On September 13, 1970, The New York Times published a letter condemning the PFLP hijackings and signed by Neocon godfather, Irving Podhoretz. In 1997, Podhoretz put his signature to the statement of principles for the Project for the New American Century, along with other Iraqi war proponents Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Only by obscuring America’s complicity in Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinians could the Bush administration hope to persuade Americans to embark on the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Only by suppressing the fact that 9/11 was not an isolated act masterminded by a madman but rather the culmination of increasingly desperate and deadly actions over more than 30 years, part of a campaign to convince Americans to deal justly with Palestinians, could Bush pursue his war for oil in the Middle East.

Justice, which we can plainly see, is still sickeningly lacking for Palestinians.

[A version of this, written by me, was published last year in Dublin's Village magazine.]



Hate wins today in court...

In a decision that will undoubtedly rally homophobes nationwide, New York's Court of Appeals ruled today that New York state law prohibits gay marriages.

According to the NY Times, it left open the possibility that the divided state Legislature could decide to allow same-sex marriages, but if so, it will happen only after a long uphill battle.

Two of the six judges dissented, one quite eloquently.

...In her often stirring dissent, Chief Judge Judith Kaye, joined by Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, offered a departure from the dry legal language of the main decision, noting that the plaintiffs represented a cross-section of ordinary New Yorkers, including a police officer, a doctor, a teacher and an artist, who wanted "only to live full lives, raise their children, better their communites and be good neighbors."

Judge Kaye added: "For most of us, leading a full life includes establishing a family," and looking forward to a wedding "as among the most significant events of their lives."

She suggested that it was wrong for the plaintiffs to be denied the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage, "because of who they love," adding that New York had a tradition of equal rights, and "the court today retreats from that proud tradition."
Indeed, it's wrong, as future generations will undoubtedly decide.

Complete story here.

Photo: The Jerusalem Times.

Israeli war crimes...

Israeli troops have occupied three abandoned Jewish settlements and part of a Palestinian town in the northern Gaza strip, to create what they're calling a "temporary buffer zone" against missile attacks into Israel.

As they kill Palestinians and destroy bridges, homes, roads, power-plants and other infrastructure they assure everyone, in the respectful language Israelis often use when referring to Palestinians, that their intention isn't to "reoccupy" Gaza.
...Israeli leaders said their aim is to stop the rocket fire and bring back the captured soldier, and there are no plans to reoccupy Gaza.

"We have no intention of drowning in the Gaza swamp," said Defense Minister Amir Peretz.
To be fair, I guess the defense minister could be speaking metaphorically, rather than descriptively. If so, he should choose his language more carefully.

Better still, he and his troops should respect international law instead of collectively punishing the civilians of Gaza for the uncontrollable actions of a few in direct defiance of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Complete AP story here.

Photo: AP/L.A. Times, Luis Sinco


Bringing democracy to Iraq...

A Marine reservist back from Iraq has been accused of the attempted murder of three teens on the 4th of July. Apparently, the Aurora, Ill, shooting may be gang-related.

So far, there's nothing particularly surprising in that story. Tragically, Americans should brace themselves for a crime wave-to-be upon the return of the Iraq War's emotionally battle-scarred veterans.

The shocker is the final graf of the story:
Graffiti referencing Chicago-area gangs is increasingly being found in Iraq, according to recent reports in the Chicago Sun-Times. The spray-painted gang art has shown up on everything from armored vehicles to concrete barriers and bathroom stalls, and some fear it may indicate an increase in gang activity in the military.
Wow. We’ve exported our gang wars to the Middle East. Is this what Bush meant when he said we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here? (Or something to that effect.)

Complete AP wire story here.


Photo from Instapundit here.


Don't worry, America's fourth estate is on top of it...

Why is speculation on President Bush's alleged anxiety over turning 60 a front-page story in America's (undeserving) paper-of-record?!
...Could it be that Mr. Bush, with his enviably low heart rate and penchant for two-hour mountain bike rides that exhaust Secret Service agents half his age, is worried about getting old? Is that why the president, so mindful of proper attire that he demands a coat and tie in the Oval Office even on weekends, wore a decidedly youthful red-and-white Hawaiian shirt to his two-days-early birthday dinner in the East Room of the White House Tuesday night?
Earth-shatteringly important story here if you're desperately bored enough to want to read it.

04 July 2006


Composite image from "Painting the Earth."

Happy 4th...!

I like this idea from Oz at EarthFamilyAlpha.
Today is a good day to declare your Independence.

While others are celebrating their dependence on a division.

Join those who would use this day to declare their unity in

Independence.

From the oil oligarchy,

From anachronistic nationalism,

From your worn out operating system...
More here.
Nuclear option off the table...

Thank goodness! Never thought I'd see the day that I'd be thankful to military men who put the brakes on a civilian president.
...In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran....
Of course, Bush/Cheney and their dogs of war are so unscrupulous, I'm not entirely breathing easy. They may do an end run around Pace and the generals.

According to Seymour Hersh, one of the most principled journalists left in America, Pace resorted to political, economic and strategic arguments to dissuade Bush from nuclear weapons. U.S. military intelligence has come up empty on nuclear weapons sites in Iran. (In other words, Iran may be telling the truth about wanting to develop nuclear power for civilian use only.) If America starts bombing indiscriminately, so the argument goes, Iran could effectively shut down the world's oil supply, resulting in serious economic consequences for America and political costs for Bush.

Sad, isn't it, that economic and political arguments work where the prospect of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians deaths doesn't?

That Bush openly considered using nuclear weapons in what would be the first nuclear strike since Nagasaki, and this against a country with which the U.S. is not at war, and American citizens did not fill the streets in non-violent protest has got to be one of the lowest moments in American history. How utterly shameful that it's the military who stood up to the president on this and not the American people.

Iran and the world are not home free. Bush/Cheney are still going forward with military contingency plans. The same Bush who, Hersh writes, remains "confident in his military decisions." In blind defiance of every shred of evidence.

Even the prospect of Iranian volunteers flooding Iraq in the thousands to attack American soldiers in revenge for an American air war against Iran doesn't dissuade the blood-thirsty Republican hawks, who insanely claim such a development would divide Iraqi Shiites into pro- and anti-Iranian camps and unify Iraqi Kurds and the Sunnis.

Complete story here.

White House photo by David Bohrer

Sneaky and subversive...

This profile of David Addington by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker is a must read for anyone wanting to understand Bush and Cheney's grab for absolute power.

Addington is the brilliant but sinister (and socially inept, although that might go without saying given he's a Republican lawyer) legalistic mind behind it.

Consider this excerpt alone:
...Fein suggested that the only way Congress will be able to reassert its power is by cutting off funds to the executive branch for programs that it thinks are illegal. But this approach has been tried, and here, too, Addington has had the last word. John Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, put a provision in the Pentagon’s appropriations bills for 2005 and 2006 forbidding the use of federal funds for any intelligence-gathering that violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects the privacy of American citizens. The White House, however, took exception to Congress’s effort to cut off funds. When President Bush signed the appropriations bills into law, he appended “signing statements” asserting that the Commander-in-Chief had the right to collect intelligence in any way he deemed necessary. The signing statement for the 2005 budget, for instance, noted that the executive branch would “construe” the spending limit only “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations.”

According to the Boston Globe, Addington has been the “leading architect” of these signing statements, which have been added to more than seven hundred and fifty laws. He reportedly scrutinizes every bill before President Bush signs it, searching for any language that might impinge on Presidential power...[emphasis mine]
The future of the U.S. as a constitutional republic is in grave danger.

02 July 2006



Pride week continued...

So, Friday and Saturday I attended the Future Queer Conference at University College Dublin. I was invited to be on a panel along with British photographer Sara Davidmann, British FTM activist Robert Allfree, and British MTF activist Gill Dalton (who's been living in Dublin for the last year and a half, busily setting up a trans support group and other organisations).

It’s the first time I’ve ever been invited to be on an academic panel and I was excited and nervous. Sara, Robert and Gill were all incredible, articulate, heartfelt, courageous and each utterly remarkable. Not for the first time, I marveled at how lucky I am to be numbered among such company. I wouldn't trade such an honor to have been born male, even to possess a penis.

People said I was great too, though to be honest I departed from my script and was all over the place, so I don't really have a feel for how I did. I talked about how the queer community feels like home to me because queer-identified people embrace ambiguity and complex identities, like mine, and are comfortable with the evolution and elasticity of identity. Many also understand how utterly inadequate traditional definitions are. What I intended to then go on and discuss included the topics of FTM invisibility, transgender inclusion/exclusion, political infighting and the way trannies embody queerness.

If you're curious, I've continued with my text (the one I didn't exactly follow) below the fold.

(To continue) it’s interesting because while my very existence challenges pat definitions, at this point in my life my queerness is anything but obvious. I “pass” so well that under normal circumstances, I appear disappointedly normal. And while this helps me find a job and spares me from the very real and scary transphobia out there, it’s problematic in other ways.

Most importantly: finding a date!! Jeeze, I walk into a queer bar and the women look away while most guys, once they find out my, uh, anatomy, lose interest.

Another matter: my queerness utterly disappears when I’m dating a woman. I end up coming across as a somewhat effeminate, straight guy. I don’t mind the effeminate part, but straight?!

The few times I’ve talked with questioning gender-queer butches who were struggling to sort out their identities and were wondering if they might be happier transitioning, I’ve said that one of the biggest things they’d be giving up if they transition is the ready-made, wonderful women’s community. Sure, it can be difficult at times, with the in-fighting and the passionate sometimes incestuous relationships. But it’s there for you! In every major western city, just inside the door of the local dyke bar!

I really miss that. The way my visible queerness used to make me an integral part of the dyke community. There’s no counterpart for FTMs, even in cities with a critical mass of FTMs, like San Francisco. And community is even scarcer in places like Dublin, where both queer and FTM numbers are small.

It can sometimes feel very lonely as an FTM, even in the midst of the larger LGB population.

In the early days of my transition, I tried to overcome my creeping invisibility by externalising my differentness. I looked a lot more “androgynous” then, which helped. It gave me an edgier look to start off, which I heightened with body piercings; blue, yellow and other coloured hair; and experimental clothing “looks”—some that worked better than others! Like an adolescent, it took me a while to realise that many of the “edgier” looking people I was trying to emulate in truth weren’t radical or subversive. And conversely, that a lot of the people who didn’t visually stand out, were.

So, in the larger picture, where does Lesbian, Gay and Bi end, and queer begin? And how to they all intersect with trans?

In my experience, the larger LGB community often shuns the label of queer—to this day, even after all the years of radicals reclaiming it! And their discomfort extends to the tranny community, which they would prefer to disavow. The discomfort is evident in the arguments, both here and abroad, that greet proposed trans inclusion in LGB organisations and legislation. It’s one way we trannies are reminded of our outsider status, even within the LGB community, and it’s a sort of discrimination non-tranny queers are privileged not to face.

This LGB disavowal, which intensifies in proportion to how conservative and committed to assimilation the lesbian, gay or bi person or organisation is, is often couched in terms of political expediency. A prominent example is the long fight in the US over trans inclusion in ENDA (the Employment Nondiscrimination Act). Which still hasn’t passed, right?! The rationale is that you fight first for LGB advancement, and then come back for us trannies. A rationale I reject as not only disingenuous, but a piss-poor political strategy.

What may surprise some on the LGB side of the debate is to find out that the discomfort is not only one way. Trannies, too, can be found who are uncomfortable with being lumped in with the LGBs. To my dismay, I’ve come across a fair number who express their unwillingness to attend support group meetings in openly gay venues--haven’t come across them here in Ireland yet, but I wager they exist. Even worse, I know FTMs who, after transition, go on to live closeted homophobic existences in which they repudiate all former connections with queer or LGB communities. And this after leading formerly VERY queer lives!

This discord brings up an interesting question, one I didn’t originate but which I rarely if ever hear discussed, namely, just who is excluding whom in this counterproductive argument? Reliable statistics are nonexistent, but were we talking numbers, it seems possible, maybe even likely, that LGB is a subset of T, rather than the other way around. That is, if we consider all the straight-identified and largely closeted male cross-dressers out there, and compare the sum total to people who identify as lesbian, gay or bi—or even the folks who don’t identify, but “practice” gay sex—trannies might outnumber the LGBs.

Furthermore, one could argue that the discrimination faced by LGB folk is predicated on behaviour perceived by the larger society to be transgendered. That is, homphobes believe males should love and mate with females and vice-versa, hence, a male loving a male contravenes gender roles. This argument is further supported by the distressing fact that, judging from my experience, it’s the most effeminate men and masculine women—straight or queer—who suffer the worst violence and discrimination.

Do you think LGB organisations would approach trans inclusion differently if they conceptualised the issue this way? That, actually, it could be trans folks who should be considering if we want to include LGBs in our organisations…?

In the end, such arguments and infighting only aid our enemies. The American Religious Right doesn’t distinguish in their rhetoric, legislation and hatred. LGB and T of all stripes are the target-of-choice whenever the Bush/Cheney regime seeks to rally its Christinista base. And, in the way of such bigotry, their official actions trickle down to the street level. I speak as someone who has had the dubious distinction of being vibed or out rightly threatened as a dyke, a fag, and a bisexual man.

Which brings me to my next point, which is how trans folks embody the very essence of queerness. To illustrate, as an FTM who eschews lower surgery, I’ve forfeited the luxury of disregarding the shortcomings inherent in simple, binary identity definitions. My existence as a man without a penis, in a world where the penis is THE defining characteristic, gives lie to the validity of the binary categories. I could walk around fully clothed my whole life, closeted, hidden, and thereby not significantly challenging any hegemony. But even if I did, an accident which, say, put me in the hospital unconscious, or an arrest at a political demonstration, or an unfortunate strip-search at a border, could abruptly toss me back into the center of controversy. Where I’d be at risk of ridicule, discrimination, or worse, violence, sexual assault and even death.

Beyond safety, basic, widely-held definitions and language simply breaks down with trannies. For example, am I engaged in “gay” sex when I’m with a gay male? A dyke? A straight female? Another FTM?

Ever?

I remember once, an ex-boyfriend and I were driving in my little jeep Suzuki, its bumper plastered with various political bumper stickers, when we were vibed by a trio of straight boys in an adjoining car. No words were exchanged, and as such encounters go, it was extremely mild, but it was apparent that our obvious queerness along with the lefty bumper stickers, offended them. I remember wondering later, would they have been reassured to know that my ex and I engaged in the same sort of sex they (probably) had with their girlfriends? That, contrary to what they were assuming, we didn’t engage in “homosexual” sex by the strict definition. Unlike the charge often leveled at queers that what we do is “unnatural,” –-far from true according to zoological studies-- and that “the body parts don’t fit,” actually they did fit, even by straight definitions. So would those guys have felt any better had they known that?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Obviously, the reason we irk the Right has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with ideology. I’d venture to say that at the heart of the matter, it’s the fact that queers believe first and foremost in our right to engage freely in sex for pleasure. To the puritanical Right, who’d like to turn back the clock to a time when birth-control was unavailable, abortion illegal (as it still sadly is here in Ireland) and all sex relegated to the “lawfully married" heterosexual bedroom, the sex we have upsets them! Not just because we do it for pleasure, with procreation optional, but additionally because our sex is between equals.

Well, by my definition anyway. For integral to my definition of queer sex is not that the participants possess like bodies and/or genders, but rather that queer sex leaves everything open to negotiation. There are no assumptions. No givens. No hard and fast rules that this has to happen, or that, in order for it to be “sex” or to be “right.” Ideally, everything must be negotiated beforehand and/or during, subtly or through clear give-and-take. Which means essentially, the act is unfolding between (or among) equals.

To me, this strikes at the very heart of “compulsory heterosexuality,” which not only seeks to equate and restrain sex strictly to procreation, but, in the process, imbues the encounter with the inherent inequality of the larger society. In the extreme version, you have the Religious Right’s non-satirical "God-given" edict that "a wife must submit to her husband’s will,” in the bedroom and elsewhere. UGH!

Thus, as a reflection of the body I have, I ascribe to the broader Wikopedia definition of “queer” that includes heterosexuals whose sexual attitudes and/or preferences not only place them outside the mainstream (such as BDSM practitioners or polyamorists) but who approach sex and gender with the attitude that it’s all up for negotiation among equals. In the same way, I’d be inclined to exclude from the definition those gays and lesbians who approach sex and gender in a traditionalist way that conforms to society’s binary categories.

As an aside, to the charge that transsexuals actually reinforce the binary gender system by resorting to hormones and/or surgery, I strongly disagree! Some trannies are rebels, others are not. Some subvert the binary, heteronormative system, others do everything they can to conform and fit in. As I read recently on one of my favorite blogs, Alas a blog, why are trannies singled out for this criticism? Why are we not afforded the same opportunity as non-trannies to either support or subvert the binary gender system by our conduct, beliefs, actions, etc?

So, in conclusion, as a mother who is a man, a man who feels that being pregnant, giving birth and mothering my daughter was one of the best things I ever did—and who, by the way, doesn’t believe that detracts from my identity as a man—I believe queer-identified trannies have much to offer the non-tranny world. First, many of us, as a result of our having lived on both sides of the great gender divide, can offer valuable observations on the damaging ways men and women interact and misunderstand one another.

Also, we have keen insight into the way gender operates in league with power in our society. Gender is used to enforce and maintain entrenched power relationships throughout the generations. When used in this way, it hurts everyone, straight, queer, bi and tyranny alike, to greater or lesser degrees. Because the system fails people like me so glaringly, we’re forced to assume the roles of “outsiders” from a very early age. And cultural outsiders make great critics. We know from a deep place, the inherent fallacy of those “basic truths” everyone takes for granted.

At a time when reactionary forces are marshaling throughout the world to entrench not only oppressive gender systems but oppressive economic, cultural and political systems, people who can point to the inherent phoniness at the heart of the arguments are valuable.

In the end, when we—trannies and queers—come out and live our lives honestly, our lives themselves becomes revolutionary. Our existences alone, thereby go far toward subverting the heteronormal hegemony, otherwise known as the "dominant paradigm."