NARTH-affiliated doc lobbies against “special right” to be equal for trans people, calls them “deluded, psychotic.”

Joseph Berger is a past Chairman of the Toronto district of the Ontario Medical Association, and past President of the Ontario branch of the American Psychiatric Association.  He was also affiliated with NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization formed specifically to “cure” people of being gay), although his bios scrub this fact and it’s not certain if he is presently affiliated with the group (He was a Scientific Advisory Committee member in 2006, and a speaker on behalf of NARTH in 2010).  While a scientific advisor, Berger garnered notice when he recommended bullying as a solution to gender diverse youth (original now offline):

“I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex – but not counselling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.

“On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world.

“Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”

At the request of Gwen Landolt of R.E.A.L. Women of Canada, he sent a submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST) to oppose the trans human rights Bill C-279.  ARPA Canada has now forwarded this submission to every sitting MP, in anticipation of Third Reading of the bill.

Berger urges MPs to oppose C-279, because according to him, trans people don’t exist:

Scientifically, there is no such a thing. Therefore anyone who actually truly believes that notion, is by definition deluded, psychotic.

He then goes on to explain that what trans people experience is “just unhappiness,” as if risking losing everything — family, spouses, children, employment, friends, assets — in order to make a whole life change is simply the path of least resistance for unhappy people.

He takes some special pains to assert that he is “speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical.”  So he’s putting aside his role as a champion of ex-gay therapy, as he presents a scientific argument that contains absolutely zero authoritative citations.  Ironically, he concludes:

As a psychiatrist, I see no reason for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or privileges different from everyone else in Canada.

I say ironically, because that is not what the Canada Human Rights Act does.  Despite Berger’s often-repeated reference to C-279 as granting “some special allowances or attitudes or possibly even ‘rights’,” what it would actually do would be to assure that trans people can’t be denied employment, housing and access to services simply because of who they are.  Which would put them on the same level as everyone else in Canada.

Added:

It was pointed out that on the submission, contact info was retained.  Be aware that abusing that info will simply feed a neo-conservative’s persecution complex and give them the opportunity to spin the response as proof that we’re “psychotic.” I really do recommend that people keep the response public, professional and responding to the ideology, not the person.  This is important.

The Roaring Silences

RoaringSilences-wOn January 15th 2012, my dad passed away.

It didn’t really seem possible, at first.  This is someone who had both legs completely shattered when a load of lumber fell on him.  Told he would never walk again, he simply steeled himself up, pushed through physiotherapy without (to my knowledge) tears, defied the odds to drive truck again, and then later reinvented himself as an industrial welder.  Speaking as someone who is regularly crippled by tendonitis in both of her knees, his ability to surmount all of that made him seem invincible and unshakable.

Death is one of those things that seems to take forever to process, with daily life (the relentless cad) having to take precedence. I sometimes manage to put it out of mind and keep distracted, only to see something or someone who reminds me, and then I’m ambushed by the many emotions still swirling in the background.

Yesterday, it was a passerby whistling through his teeth that brought his memory back. I tried to fight it all off on the drive home from work, as birds danced haphazardly across the highway, swooping in front of passing cars (taunting, really) like it was a surreal game to dare drivers to try to mash them into their grilles.  Then out by the bend near Aldersyde, a falcon — one I’d seen in the area many times on my drive in the past few months (you don’t miss a beautiful bird like that) — circled only a couple feet above the ground in the median before veering unexpectedly into the path of my car, lifting somewhat, headed for certain collision with the upper left part of my windshield.  I gasped; went for the brake.  He swooped upward gently, unconcerned.

For a moment, he was vivid, sleek, gliding, his mind sharp, focused on something in the barren trees.  He looked confident, and in control.  He was gorgeous, dressed in rich shades of warm brown and white plumage that reminded me of the blanket that used to lay across dad’s couch.

And then, only inches away – I could have reached out and cupped him in my hands – he moved up, possibly buoyed by the flow of air around my car.  In a split second, I looked back and saw him sail across my back window, then up above the highway.  And then we breezed our separate ways, into the roaring silences.

The floodgates opened.  Again.

It doesn’t get better.  It only gets more distant.

It’s a little more distant now – but not by much – from the afternoon of his memorial service.  When we arrived, we entered and sat on the relatives’ side, but after a few minutes, my aunt called us up to join the family in the side room and sit at the front.  My sister largely went on with business and acknowledged us when necessary, although my niece hung around, offering support in what she obviously knew was a difficult situation.  I’d known a little bit about what to expect, having seen dad at the hospital and then the whole family in the long-term care room before he’d died.  But I wasn’t sure how many among our relatives and his friends even knew about me — if I was the proverbial black sheep everyone was ashamed of, some pitiful prodigal, or the Deadbeat Who Left.

My sister delivered a lengthy eulogy that attempted to describe dad’s life and all of his relationships, attempting to animate the classic “dad” moments she remembered — his habits, his absurdist humour, his steadfastness.  She invited everyone in attendance through naming them to be a part of the definitive memory of his life – my sister, our mom, my brother-in-law and their kids, dad’s brothers, his sister, his cousins and second-cousins, his co-workers, his coffee buddies, the wait staff at the Zellers restaurant where he would have breakfast….

Although I knew it wasn’t about me — and was never supposed to be — it wasn’t lost on me that the narrative she wove was one in which I had never existed at all.  I was erased by the roaring silences.

My niece said a short remembrance as well, and then the priest made a brief comment about opening the floor to anyone who wanted to speak before moving on to a song… but the musician was already on the way to the podium before he finished speaking.  Formalities had to be observed, of course, but nobody really wanted to risk hearing from the Deadbeat Who Left.

And perhaps it was better that way.  That had been the thought, anyway, when I had dropped out of my family’s lives.  I had come out as transsexual to them several years ago, and they seemed cautiously accepting at first – and mostly acknowledged that things made far more sense to them, now.  But the years that followed made things more strained, rather than showing any improvement.  Pronouns were always the old pronouns, names were always the old name, and if I’d complain about that, the answer would be, “you have to realize that this is difficult for us…” and then they’d go on to fail to get it right even once.  The old questions kept getting repeated or grew even less informed, conversation became more strained.  Whether from outright rejection (at that time), or inner denial of the situation, things in the first few years of my transition had simply moved backwards.  Soon, speaking to family had become an experience in which I would step from a world in which I lived authentically and people hardly gave that a second thought, back into a world in which I was still [old name], “he,” the persona I’d had to play for forty years.

While the world adapted and came to accept me as I am and as I live, my family still fretted about not wanting to tell my niece and nephew, or being afraid of the shame they’d feel from my aunts and uncles.  In conversation, I learned from mom that my father — who recovered from shattered legs calmly, with more strength than those around him — cried like a baby on multiple occasions at the thought of his son transitioning to female.  I couldn’t de-transition (going back to that kind of suffocation would have been unbearable now that I’d discovered what life could be like), so it seemed like the only thing I could give my family was closure – to disown myself from them and let everyone move on.  And that’s how I became the Deadbeat Who Left.

I had wanted to write about dad and not be self-focused or self-indulgent.  I’m not really sure that I can, though, when my most vivid and recurring memory was the distance between us, the chasm that each of us wanted to cross, but neither could see a way.  For dad, it was the tradition, the stoic discipline of silent nobility that he had learned so thoroughly that he didn’t know how to step beyond it.  For me, it was the ill-fitting skin that confined me in ways that I had no idea how to describe and had only the belief that he – like the rest of the world – would see me as some freakish monster if I had attempted to do so.  All we had was the distance, and the roaring silences.

And like my sister’s elegy for dad, I guess, all of our memories are helplessly coloured by the way we perceived things; by our observances, remembrances and interactions.  No matter how closely we can know someone, we will all always relate that in only filtered anecdotes, separated as we are by the confines of our own skulls.

And as it was, that separation was pretty vast.  That’s the way it was supposed to be, in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s: men were stoic, aloof, never fazed by anything.  Masculinity was not just about being strong, but about being cold and detached… a kind of “superior,” it was thought… although for the life of me, I’ll never understand why.

For dad, his role models were straight out of Westerns, the Clint Eastwoods and John Waynes, the dark, quiet, Shane-like strangers trailing darker secrets — violent heroism, unintended misdeeds, a town left behind and a body on the plain.  The world was Hollywood-simple, the conflicts tangible, and admiration from afar was seen as preferable to any close affection which might turn over the rock that could reveal one’s flaws.  In this world of pre-Randian ruggedness, you never surrendered control, but rather just forged ahead, still conscious that there was a morality to that struggle, instead of just ignorantly believing (as many seem to now) that the right of way simply goes to those who take it.

Some of that harkened to the realities he grew up in, I’m sure — the oldest of several kids living in a northern prairie town, working from when he was young, taking on the mantle of responsibility like it was expected of him… but also seeming to revel in that, at times.  Responsibility was a burden, but it could also be a badge of honour.

This is someone who had quit a plural-decade smoking habit by throwing out the remainder of his last package and then just never smoking again — without complaint or comment.  He just as abruptly stopped drinking, which had until then contributed to a volatile home.  Years later, he found he could social-drink again, without slipping into his previous addictive patterns.  When it came to sheer acts of will, dad set the bar pretty high.

Yet, some of the Western motif was also escapism for him.  I always wondered if his affinity for Westerns and his silence on Aboriginal (in our case, Métis, so already with some degrees of separation) history were somehow connected. Bad things tended to happen to “injuns” in Westerns — usually red and wet bad things that pre-empted any possibility of sympathetic portrayal.

In this cowboy world, you “just take it.”  You “be a man.”  You talk through deeds and actions, not words and feelings.  You “sneck up” and don’t ever, ever cry.  It’s not an easy ideal to live up to.

And it’s doubly difficult when manhood mystifies you.  As much as everyone tried to condition me toward that ideal, I never really got it.  I only figured out how to act the part… sometimes enough so that I still forget how to let down my guard and just relax and be myself.  But for a six- and eight- and twelve-year-old round peg forced into that square hole, it was crushing at times.  I admire my father for many things, but I’ll never fathom what it must have been like being him.

And that was the distance, the gulf between us.  We never talked… instead, we exchanged small talk, and then listened to the roaring silences.

I cried a lot as a kid, and took a lot of scorn from people for it.  I learned to try to muffle it, hold it in, cry in private and choke it back when I was in danger of being discovered.  My father was not violent toward me, but I still had the feeling that my sense of being a girl was so unspeakable and alien that the inevitable critique would just as soon be in the form of a violent backhand as verbal.  But even that didn’t scare me as much as the possibility of outright rejection.  But it was the 1970s, and that sense emanated from everywhere, not just dad.  And in those years, bad things tended to happen to “girly-boys,” while the source could be anyone — and usually, they were red and wet bad things that pre-empted any possibility of living out loud.

There was one moment that challenged that distance.

Talk show host Phil Donahue did a show about crossdressing when I was young (actually he did several shows during a time when it was almost never spoken about, eventually garnering attention when he wore a dress over a suit during a 1988 sweeps week). The day the news arrived home, I remember my mother talking disparagingly about it with a friend on the phone, and then later with dad.  Dad was typically very quiet, and his four word comment was something about transvestites that was not exactly pleasant (I don’t remember now exactly how it was phrased).

I had tried to pretend I wasn’t listening to any of the discussion, but my emotions started to boil over.  I discreetly went up to my room, and wept as quietly as I could imagine, probably for several hours.  “Transvestite” wasn’t really the right word for me, but at that time, I had no real language or understanding to know that.  What had overwhelmed me emotionally was the sudden realization that there was a word at all.  Because if someone had thought to coin a word, then it meant that I wasn’t the only one.

The days following that, I would begin the first of what would be many pilgrimages to the downtown public library to try to learn more, before arriving at the “authoritative” Janice Raymond volume on the subject, which painted a nefarious, vicious and violent portrait about “co-opting womens’ bodies” and raping through emulation (or caricature) that certainly didn’t coincide with what I understood for myself — leading me to believe for a time that I must not really be transsexual.  But that night, before all that library searching, well, that night was different.  That night I tried to choke back the sobs quietly, when dad walked in to tell me something, and realized that something was terribly wrong.

I’d wanted to talk with him for ages — to really communicate.  But there was no way I could talk to him about that.  I had only just realized moments before that I might not be some lone, demon-possessed, defective freak, and certainly had no way to articulate what was going on in my head.  I was just starting to realize that my sense that I was supposed to be a girl might be more than just a personal failing.

I knew I was different. I knew I related to girls. I knew that boys confounded me. I knew that my body parts were weird and didn’t fit, even before puberty came along and complicated everything all that much more. I knew that I was far more emotional than I was supposed to be — but then, the “stoic, aloof” male image I grew up having to live up to was unreasonable to begin with, and I didn’t believe that “emotional = girl.” And that was the problem: once you try to communicate it, you start navigating a bunch of stereotypes and miniscule elements that don’t adequately show how completely encompassing it is.  It was a complex series of things overall, but I knew I was unmistakeably different. And when I’d try to figure out how to explain it, all I could do was either scratch the surface of a few semi-relevant stereotypes, or else stare away, feel the crushing frustration, and feel helpless at the enormity of it.

“Only Everything.”

But my family, my body, and essentially everything around me told me I was supposed to be a certain way. It was something that encompassed likes and dislikes, yes, but was not really about liking dolls over trucks. It was something that encompassed being a sensitive kid, yes, but was not really about emotions. It was something that encompassed relating to girls and women, but was not really about the formation of personal bonds. It was something that encompassed body issues, but was not simply a body image problem. When I grew older, it would be something that affected sex and sexuality too, yes, but was not really about that either. It was… everything, a sense of being a stranger in my own life, 24/7.  I don’t know how a 12- or 14-year-old could begin to put words to it.  I still can’t completely and adequately do it.

And given that everyone and everything else told me that I should just naturally be all those things that were to me actually instinctively uncomfortable, unnatural and puzzling, I concluded that the problem was me. That it was a character flaw. It made more sense that I was wrong, than to believe that of everything and everyone else. And at that point, I came to understand myself as invisible, insignificant and freakish.

The unspeakable loneliness of not being able to tell anybody who you are.

So when dad had come into the room that evening, he’d unintentionally cornered me at one of the most difficult moments in my childhood.  And I couldn’t think of a single thing to say that would explain what was going on.  It would be the one chance in my life in which there seemed to be an opportunity to reach across the chasm.  And I couldn’t do it — my secret was that unspeakable.  Instead, I made something up about having had an argument with friends.  To which he replied, “Oh.  Is that all?” and made a few clichéd comments about things getting better, before leaving the room.

All that was left was the roaring silences.  But then, I remember that moment, and realize that given the context of the very early 1980s, if I had tried to explain things then, it likely could only possibly have gone worse.  It was a time, after all, where gender difference in children was seen as something to be quashed, and where transsexuality was equated to sociological or even literal rape by perceived “experts.”  Even by 2007, you could still find the occasional hospital in Alberta which treated gender issues using ECT.

I suppose that he had tried to communicate too, in his own way.  A few times, he took me out to his place of work, having a few things to do at the shop.  In that masculine world, I met some of his friends and co-workers, hefty, rugged blue-collar chums who lived in a realm of grit and bravado.  How I must have embarrassed him, this scared, effeminate kid afraid to talk, afraid to get dirty, uncomfortable and unsuited for that world — although if he was ashamed of me, he never did or said anything to indicate that.

It was probably his way of communicating without talking, but I couldn’t hear him, intimidated by all the roaring silences.  Raised to be stoic, I often didn’t know what to do with those things that needed to be said, so I stuffed them down and buried them like I thought I was supposed to.  And he, I suppose, tried to do much the same.  The one outlet I had was writing, and so I did a lot of it, filling scribblers and notebooks that I would never return to, destroying them so no one else would read them… sometimes even writing on my arms and body (kept carefully covered), if nothing else was available.  And he, I suppose, didn’t even have an outlet at all.

Before Christmas, when my cousin contacted me to let me know that dad was sick, I’d already been estranged from the family for a few years.  I hadn’t known that during that time, dad had come around better than anyone else in the family, taking time to learn about transsexuality, telling his side of the family, and pushing them for a commitment (which many of them eagerly gave) not to shut me out of the family.  In many ways, I’m ashamed that I hadn’t had more faith in him.  I’d also assumed that his side of the family would likely reject me, too, yet it seems that with the exception of a couple people who couldn’t make eye contact with me at his funeral, I was very much mistaken.

But when I went to the hospital to see him, it was without knowing what I was walking into or who would be there.  As we were getting ready to leave for Edmonton, a message came in on Facebook.  My sister, too, was writing to inform me that dad was sick, although her note was colder, aloof, seemed to be sent as a result of mom’s prodding.  In my sister’s eyes, I was the Deadbeat Who Left.

I found that mom had started to accept things, making an effort to understand, an effort to acknowledge.  In the face of the opinions that some of the religious leaders she reads (John Hagee, Billy Graham, James Dobson) have about trans people, that’s a monumental step.

I’d started my transition a number of years ago.  When I came out to my family, I told my sister first.  I’d always been somewhat aloof from all my family, knowing that who I was could sooner or later be an issue, and I tended to shut them out of my life — which probably hurt her worst of all.  But I also thought our bond was strongest in some ways, and I trusted her to be the most resilient and capable of being a support for our parents.  But with her too, the distance grew over time.

My sister came to want little to no contact with me.  It could happen that for the rest of our lives, I am for all intents and purposes dead in her eyes.

Her biggest excuse for keeping distance, at first, was fears about when or how to tell her kids. That was fair for the first weeks and even months — she hadn’t had nearly as much time as I had to process who I was and what that meant.  But after the passage of a few years, and right up to dad’s hospitalization, she still hadn’t said anything to them.  She probably saw it as protecting them from something, and the luxury of time and distance had made it easy — but it would also have the consequence of forcing a revelation at an already emotionally turbulent time.

Because up until the evening he died, they still didn’t know.  And in the midst of everything else that had been going on, I also had to worry about keeping out of sight and not crossing paths, while my sister and brother-in-law had to figure out how to break that news to the kids too.  In addition to dad dying, we were the hot potato in a game of hide-the-tranny.  For them, it could have been a triple-whammy, because my longtime partner was there with me, and her presence might have broke the usual sexual orientation expectations, too.

After the nurse announced that they’d be starting his IV, which would contain a painkiller that would probably also cloud his perception (and they didn’t expect him to recover afterward), the room cleared out and everyone went to stand at his bedside, except for my partner and I.  My sister and nephew were still in the room, and I still felt like I was supposed to keep from ruining their last moments with dad.  I’d spent a lot of time with him earlier that night, so I could understand that, but it bothered me that I couldn’t be there in support during his last moments of consciousness and lucidity, as he gathered up his courage to proceed into that Big Nothing.

By the time anyone who needed to be evacuated was gone, I came back and he was already asleep.  Mom was holding his hand, and asked me to do the same — at first, I was uncertain, knowing that the narcotics in his system would leave him befuddled, and I didn’t want to cause him panic if he awoke and forgot who I was.  But once I held his hand, I didn’t want to let go, and I stayed with him all night.  Sometime either just before or just after they started his IV, my niece and nephew were told about me.  My niece stayed with us and turned out to be an incredible and unexpected source of support.

I never was able to have a father-daughter relationship with my dad.  But then, even if he’d lived several years and we’d stayed in contact, I doubt we ever could have.  He’d been stoic and distant all my life, and that wasn’t likely to change much.  And after nearly 40 years of trying to fill a family dynamic that never fit either of us in the first place, I doubt it would have been very easy to learn something different.  So I would never be a daughter to my dad, and never know what it’s like to have that relationship.  But at least, at the end, he and I were able to reconcile the years that I was not really a son.

Because that afternoon, we arrived at an unspoken understanding.  Although there were times of comfort and stability, his life had not been easy, and he carried some weights he never wanted to burden anyone else with, and did so the best he could.  I realized that the burdens of his life were probably beyond anything I could fathom, and something I couldn’t help but respect.

And he more or less told me without saying it aloud that he came to the same realization about me.

That mutual respect was what we had both wanted.  And it was the one thing that screamed across the roaring silences.

After he was gone, there was a little bit of discussion about dad’s things.  Dad’s last wish was that everything along that line remain civil, so I didn’t ask for a lot: the antique clock that sat on the fireplace mantel when we grew up, and dad’s crib board.  My sister had suggested I’d want an ornamental display of two swords and a shield I’d given to him when I was in my teens — although I’m not sure if that was more out of consideration for me or out of a desire to not have to see it.  I wasn’t too worried about things.  I got to hug my dad in his last days, to hold his hand, and even to kiss him.  Those were things that would never have been possible before — men (or at least men at that time, I suppose) didn’t do that.  To me, that meant everything.

Yesterday, as the falcon swooped across my line of sight, casual, intent on something nearby, I thought of dad.  I was a little jealous of the practiced ease in the way it dodged; the way its confidence wasn’t shaken by a huge steel projectile hurtling at it; the freedom it had to circle above the world.  I shouldn’t have been, I suppose: that majestic creature was something I was never meant to be.

As it soared upward, out of view, I saw its mouth open to cry out.  Insulated and enclosed in my car, I couldn’t hear it any more than it could hear my momentary gasp of surprise.  It roared in silence.

Fitting, I suppose.

Crossposted to The Bilerico Project.

Understanding the legalities of First Nations struggles in Canada, present and past.

This is 35 minutes long, but Russell Diabo (publisher of the First Nations Strategic Bulletin) provides an informative and important discussion about the complexities of the issues surrounding the Indian Act, the Harper Government’s termination agenda, the #IdleNoMore movement, Chief Spence’s hunger strike, and Bill C-45.  This comes courtesy ThePerfectPlex’s YouTube channel.

Previously: Treaties are Between Nations

Additional:

Bill C-279: Where it stands.

The Parliamentary process has more twists and turns than a bloody mangled Slinky.

By now, I’d hoped to write about how the Conservatives’ filibuster of the committee process meant that the trans human rights Bill C-279 would be returning unamended for Third Reading, but then I found out that there’s a possibility that the two amendments arrived at in committee might still be accepted for introduction by the Speaker of the House.  So I can’t make any certain statements about the bill, or what it will be. Others have already begun branding it the “Gender Identity Bill.”  Barring some unforeseen disruption of process, Bill C-279 should be back before Parliament in late February or early March (the Parliamentary process on Private Members’ Bills is quite long), and we will probably know by late this month whether Randall Garrison will ask the Speaker to include the two amendments decided on in committee.

But in the meantime, people have still been asking about what my position on the bill would be if it does somehow proceed with the amendments.  Others have already stated that they would actively oppose a bill if gender expression is dropped.

Having been one of the people who early on expressed concern about the consequences if gender expression were dropped from Bill C-279, and if definitions were added for gender identity which potentially excluded people, I feel some obligation to say something publicly about the mixed sentiments happening around the bill that might have been (and may yet be).  I’d said at that time that if either took place, I didn’t believe I could support the bill, although whether I’d oppose it would have to depend on the specifics that emerged.  There has been some near-division that has resulted, and I feel some responsibility to address it (and am late doing so, as it is).

First…

I think it’s important to remind folks that transitioning people are mostly considered read into existing legislation already, although there is some feeling of precariousness to that, and it takes some effort to demonstrate inclusion in each case (which was one of the reasons the acting CHRC secretary general, Ian Fine, agreed that explicit inclusion would be helpful).  Because of this, I do personally believe that Canadian trans people have the luxury of taking the time to pass a comprehensive trans human rights bill, without people falling through the cracks in the meantime — and I believe that this is far preferable to trying to fix a flawed or abbreviated bill later.  For that matter, the more discussion that happens about trans people, the more that hearts and minds can be (and are) changed… so taking longer to pass a bill is not all bad.

It’s also worth pointing out that Bill C-279 applies to federal contractors and federal institutions.  It would provide an important signal to provinces, employers and Canadians in general as well, but it doesn’t of itself provide total protection to everyone across Canada.  There are a lot of emotions wrapped up in this bill, as though all our lives depend on it, and maybe we need a reality check on that.  It’s important, but not to the level of the emotional involvement people currently have with it.  This is another reason why I believe we can afford to be pragmatic and seek something comprehensive.

Would I oppose an amended C-279?

This question may be moot.  The committee process was deliberately filibustered by Conservatives, who sabotaged a motion to ask for an extension to finish considering the bill — something that was only supposed to be a few minutes for a y/n vote — with over an hour of debate that actually runs afoul of Parliamentary policy.  As a consequence it should be the unamended bill that proceeds onward, but apparently, this isn’t certain.  So for now, we’re only talking about something that might be.  Theory.

However, trying to reintroduce those amendments for Third Reading would probably provide the political opportunity to bring up the committee chaos and portray the bill as confusing, risky, vague, and everything else that opponents have claimed thus far.  It could also reopen a debate about adding a different definition, etc.

Without Gender Expression

In theory, if gender expression is dropped, it could in fact still work the way that Randall Garrison and many others believe — that gender expression would be read into the legislation, anyway.  It’s not an ideal situation, and I could not in good conscience actively support that bill.

But I don’t think I’d stand in its way, either.

I don’t like incrementalist approaches, given that we’ve been on the short end of that stick enough times to recognize the harm of them.  I will not participate in an incrementalist effort that could potentially exclude some trans people.

(For that matter, gender expression inclusion is not something to be afraid of, when you know more about trans people, diverse as they may be.  All the fearmongering that has arisen about gender identity and gender expression is based on assumptions of illegal or inappropriate behaviour projected onto trans people, with the belief that human rights inclusion will somehow absolve someone of said behaviour.  Human rights legislation does not absolve people of responsibility for their actions, or give people an excuse to conduct them.  It never did.)

But I’ve also watched the divisions and rifts that have happened in other places where trans-inclusive initiatives fall apart.  It can get very bitter very quickly, and in a way that will never help us develop the infrastructure that trans people (as a movement) need.  I don’t want to be responsible for something similar, especially if I can’t be certain any actual harm would happen.

Definitions

In theory, if gender identity is defined, it could easily be a bigger issue, if that definition excludes people.  Especially given that two of the definitions proposed (both by Brent Rathgeber, I believe) would have required a diagnosis in order to be eligible for human rights protections.  But the definition that was accepted was the one in the Yogyakarta Principles, and I’m relatively comfortable that it does not do that:

“Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body…”

Gender

A question was also raised whether gender identity and gender expression were even the right terms to work with, and asking whether “gender” would be the better term.

Personally, I’d be concerned that “gender” would still result in the same uncertainty that exists with the read-in inclusion under “sex.”  I’d also be very worried that this is a bad stage to be changing terminology, especially when there is a lengthy track record for gender identity and gender expression, which are used and understood in many international documents.

But there’s no value in being closed-minded to discussion, so I’m interested in hearing the reasoning.  The questions I’d ask are:

  1. Are there any areas that focusing on “gender” would address that the current approach doesn’t?
  2. Are there failures of the current approach, and are they serious enough to necessitate a late detour?
  3. Wouldn’t a definition be necessary in order to assure inclusion using “gender,” and isn’t this as problematic as the status quo?

But there could be some value in including gender, and defining it in contrast to sex.

This is, however, a longer-term discussion, and I don’t know that it affects the current path of C-279, unless there is something particularly problematic about the bill.

So

For the time being, there is still some uncertainty about which bill will be proceeding.  We will probably know in late January, and then the Bill will come up in late February.

For those who would like to see the original bill move forward, my suggestion is to lobby those who supported it thus far (this is a good time to, since Parliament is out of session for a couple weeks and legislators are likely to be in their ridings), and let them know why a comprehensive bill is important and why “gender identity” fails to cover all trans people on its own.  And if they pledge to support the bill regardless of whether the amendments are included, please let Mr. Garrison’s office know.

Treaties Are Between Nations: An #IdleNoMore Solidarity Post

When I first started blogging, I mentioned something that I’ve only talked about occasionally, since.

I wrote about being Métis but passing for white and living in urban Canada.  This brought with it an escape from most serious forms of discrimination that First Nations people face, and something that should be acknowledged as privilege, even if it wasn’t consciously pursued.  It also brought many occasions of people letting fly the judgmental assumptions and beliefs that they have about Aboriginal peoples, thinking it’s “safe” to do so around me.  And then, when I get angry and reveal that I’m Métis, those people simply change their behaviour.  Their opinions haven’t changed, they simply decide to be more careful about speaking in front of me.  It’s also not unusual to have them also start projecting those assumptions onto me.

There’s a reason that I don’t write about it a lot.  I grew up in urban Canada and was largely not told about about my heritage, or with anything that would connect me to it.  In recent years, I’ve been able to make some positive connections and rediscover things, but remained preoccupied with other activism, life in general, and especially the sucking black hole of the day-to-day work of economic survival.

Part of it was my own fault, too.  I learned many of the negative attitudes from Canadian culture, and internalized them (directing them inwardly and occasionally also outwardly) until I finally realized I needed to question them (and I occasionally still discover some screwed up way that I’ve unconsciously internalized things).  While I can take some solace in the fact that I’d changed my perspective, the fact that it took so long is still something I’m not proud of.

And so being disconnected from that heritage, having escaped the worst of anti-Aboriginal prejudice, and also having spent some of my youth being ashamed of it, I’ve never seen myself as someone who could be inspiring about Aboriginal issues or have much right to speak out.

Supporting #IdleNoMore

That notwithstanding, I feel a need to at least express my support and do something to draw attention to the #IdleNoMore movement which is spreading and which the mainstream media is trying to ignore in hopes that it will go away.  There are many things I can’t claim to speak with authority on.  But I can speak to my own reasons for supporting this movement, and why the “assimilate already” attitude from non-Aboriginal Canada toward the First Nations fails.

Decolonial Thinking: Putting Words into Practice

Additionally, I’ve previously written to trans audiences about colonial thinking, describing it as “how various classes lay claim and ownership over each other and impose regulations, will and rules of conformity that run counter to other classes’ needs.”  Decolonialism is the process of seeking to dismantle the socially-constructed ways that societies create and reinforce oppression and colonization of peoples, cultures, characteristic classes and nations throughout the world.

A movement — any movement, trans or otherwise — can too easily get hung up on its own issues and forget that its struggle is part of a larger whole.  And while it is not physically possible to be all things to all people, or to involve oneself in all forms of activism (nor is that good for one’s health), we do have some responsibility to be aware of others’ struggles, be empathetic, and be prepared to at least be a voice when the opportunity presents itself.  It is crucial to recognize that decolonization is not merely a process of liberating ourselves, but one of challenging the world we create and empower through tacit obedience on a universal level — to question the actions undertaken supposedly under our name, with our assumed consent, whether we’ve elected and empowered the governors in question or not.  Decolonial thinking is an aspiration not only to liberate a single minority, not only to liberate multiple intersecting minorities, not only to liberate ALL minorities, but to deconstruct the ways by which we marginalize and oppress — to wholly dismantle the ability to institutionalize oppression.  Or at least, that’s my personal take on decolonial thought, anyway.

Any discussion about decolonialism needs to acknowledge the fact that literal, institutionalized colonization still persists.  It persists in the Anglophone / Francophone conflict in Canada, and in the various race and immigration struggles here and south of our border.  And it persists most vividly in Canada’s treatment of its First Nations.

Historically, the First Nations have experienced depopulation and genocide, exile within their own homelands, economic impoverishment made worse by theft and/or destruction of reserve land resources, and institutional attempts to obliterate their cultures and traditions, and replace them with western ideologies and values.  But this is not merely historical, and my own loss of heritage is merely one of countless examples of how that cultural erosion and eradication continues to occur.  While #IdleNoMore was ignited by the ways that the Harper Government’s omnibus budget bills have dismantled previous agreements with the First Nations, the kindling has been decades of invisibly erasing a nation.

We still have a tendency to think of Canada as a single nation, with everyone subsumed by it.  That’s a problem.  Treaties are signed by nations.  Plural.

Nations, and Other Distinctions.

And that illustrates just one of the many things that complicate justice and equality for Aboriginal peoples.  Canadians have long ago stopped thinking of the First Nations as nations — as though the treaties resulted in their dissolution and absorption into Canada.

This has allowed a cognitive dissonance to infect the public consciousness over the past century or more, in which Aboriginal peoples are often characterized by some as (forgive the paraphrase) “spoiled brats who want to be special.”  The non-Aboriginal “solution” to First Nations plights has always been to assimilate people to the point that they become like “any other Canadian,” and our governmental policies have always been keyed toward this objective.  But dissolution of the First Nations as nations was never agreed to, and it’s because of this that the erasure of Native culture over two centuries has taken the form of separation of children from families, denigration of traditions, and sometimes even extermination of entire populations (most familiarly through the use of things like smallpox-infected blankets, but evidence is surfacing about other atrocities as well).  Canada never had authority to actually dissolve the First Nations, so it set out to do what it could to disempower, erase, and break them.

This is why you have the atrocious conditions at places like Attawapiskat (and it should be acknowledged here that both conditions and legalities are very different from place to place because of the different treaties that were signed, the varying limitations on communities to self-govern, the different visions of those communities, etc.).  Treaty-designated reserves and territories are exempt from Provincial laws (which sometimes gets spun as “preferential treatment” elsewhere in Canada).  But treaty legalities limit the way that Aboriginal communities can self-govern.  And where self-governance exists, federal legislation often prevents communities from establishing a legal system with teeth that can actually enforce Aboriginal laws and regulations in a meaningful way.  That is how you can have homes built upon floodplains, riddled with mold, without fire-suppression sprinklers or other safety considerations that would be illegal under fire codes, without sanitation, and basically uninhabitable.  This is how you can have a school built and torn down shortly afterward because it was built over toxic waste.  This is why the only solution available for deplorable housing can be to build yet more homes that will eventually be uninhabitable.  Canadians outside the experience of Aboriginal plight see only the money, and not the complex morass of institutionalized chaos that keeps that money being spent in a grossly ineffective state of triage.  Or the fact that that money has to address everything for Aboriginal populations — from housing to health care to education to infrastructure to utilities to social supports like addictions assistance and suicide prevention… many of them things that the average Canadian also benefits from but aren’t including the price tag in their comparison.

Agreements.

That’s where the Indian Act comes in — a piece of legislation which was said to implement the agreements made in the treaties.  It was a deplorable piece of legislation in the first place, steeped in racism, and until 1960, it even denied Native peoples the right to vote for the government that determined their fates, unless they renounced Indian status first.  20 major amendments to the Indian Act later, we still have First Nations ravaged by economic exploitation (revealing the worst of capitalism), and barriers to communities that want to grow and flourish and determine their own destinies.  Not all have done badly under these agreements, but those who’ve done well are very often aware of how easy it is to fall into despair, and how difficult it is to climb back out.

And so, the Harper government now steps into that by unilaterally making changes to those agreements, as though the First Nations do not even need to be consulted at all.  In the massivesupermegaomnibus “budget,” some of the few guarantees that government historically did provide to the First Nations were struck off, to allow for more corporate exploitation — without anything substantial in return.  And then when you hear neo-liberal pundits like Spin Media entertainer Ezra Levant talk about it, you hear spin that the best way to deal with it all is to dissolve the First Nations and give them the legal right to sell their land off to oil companies.  Harper’s own response to Attawapiskat was to try to impose an emergency manager, reminiscent of the tactic being tried (in attempt number two, now) to arbitrarily break minority communities in Michigan and sell off public assets.  And it is not a heartening sign when the Prime Minister ignores and refuses to meet with Chief Spence, follows the Tom Flanagan playbook and appoints an Indian and Northern Affairs Canada minister who had been a former forester directing the destruction of Haida lands, and who once viewed the department he now heads as:

“… the money vacuum. …. Furthermore, it is a cruel, unfair hoax on the Canadian taxpayer because despite all the federal largesse and misguided paternalism, those status Indians who live on reserves do not pay income, property or sales taxes on purchases delivered to the reserves….”

This is why Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike and the #IdleNoMore flashmobs, round dances, railway and highway blockades, and other decidedly peaceful acts of resurgence and reclamation are part of a multifaceted issue which can’t be boiled down to one law, one action or one easy fix… or even one particular group to negotiate with, for that matter, which could complicate resolving things.

Now, in the above, there is probably at least something I screwed up, got wrong, mischaracterized, failed to reveal the full scope, have overemphasized victimhood, etc.  I do know, for example, that some consider the word “Aboriginal” objectionable, while others embrace it — terminology debates are not just limited to trans communities, but I’m not versed in all the nuances of that discussion to make a decision on that word.  I often don’t know specifically where I’ve messed up my characterizations because I don’t have the lived experience, and this is why I don’t typically write about First Nations issues.  But I challenge people to question the assimilationist mentality that has often been passed off as “conventional wisdom,” complete with dismissive finger-pointing.

And that is why I support #IdleNoMore, and issue this challenge to my readers: don’t accept the media, mainstream or party line for truth.  Question everything.

Some recommended reading:

The #IdleNoMore Manifesto;

âpihtawikosisân’s Idle No More: There’s good reason the Natives are restless;

Her follow-up, Where do we go from here?

Pam Palmater gives some idea of how legislation (not just the massivesupermegaomnibus “budget”) discussed by the Harper Conservatives as of November impacted the Indian Act, using Bill S-2 Family Homes on Reserve & Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (which in true Harper fashion, was presented as a way to protect women) as an example;

Intercontinental Cry discusses the suite of bills passed or in process affecting the treaties, and puts them in the context of the White Paper of 1969;

And if you want to focus just on the numbers, âpihtawikosisân gives a frank breakdown of the disputed dollars in Attawapiskat as an example.

(Crossposted to rabble.ca)

Ending violence: it takes more than a report.

redumbrellaDecember 17th is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, sometimes called “Red Umbrella Day.”  It is intended to draw attention to the hatred and violence that sex workers experience, the attitudes that enable the violence, and the way that criminalization institutionalizes that prejudice in ways that isolate and make sex workers vulnerable, rather than providing any kind of protection.

This year, it is also the day that the 1,448-page report was released from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry into the failures in the investigation of Robert Pickton, which resulted in investigations into the pig farmer being abandoned, charges for an assault dropped in 1997.  Following that, 19 or more disappearances of women took place, before Pickton was finally arrested and charged in 2002.  Pickton later claimed to have killed 49 women; DNA found on his farm linked him to at least 33 deaths.

It’s an inquiry that has been fraught with issues, with non-profit groups representing the women and community issues involved being singled out to shoulder their own expenses, a barrier which prevented some from speaking at all.  Most of them boycotted the proceedings even though they had lobbied to have the inquiry in the first place.  Key witnesses were requested and declined by the inquiry, sometimes without explanation. A lawyer for 25 of the families stated that the inquiry was rushing testimonies and limiting cross-examination of Vancouver Police Department (VPD) witnesses.

Last August, an independent report was released by a group appointed to represent the affected communities of Vancouver’s downtown east side (DTES). That report, “Wouldn’t Piss On Them If They Were On Fire:” How Discrimination Against Sex Workers, Drug Users And Aboriginal Women Enabled A Serial Killer, detailed how the VPD displayed indifference and open disrespect toward sex workers and Aboriginal women.

The VPD & RCMP investigations into the missing women was plagued by indifference, underfunding, leads that were not followed up on, at least 4 testimonies identifying Pickton that were ignored, and endless moments of disrespect and spite expressed toward the victims.  A testimony from one of the former investigators illuminated how underfunded and undersupported the investigation was, and that even internally, it appeared to be a sham:

“There was no real plan to find these women,” she wrote, in one of the few passages that were read into the inquiry record last month. “I see now that I was merely a figurehead, a sacrificial lamb thrown into an investigation the VPD management was convinced would never amount to anything and would never grow into the tragedy it has become. An investigation they could care less about.”

Whatever its shortcomings may be, the report released today does acknowledge that “The missing and murdered women were forsaken by society at large and then again by the police. The pattern of predatory violence was clear and should have been met with a swift and severe response by accountable and professional institutions, but it was not…”

How far it will encourage the relevant institutions to make clear and significant changes to the way that Aboriginal women and sex workers are regarded remains to be seen.  At a glance, there’s some deflection from the attitudes and comments made by law enforcement officials to “public indifference,”and that’s always been a barrier to change: society blames the system, the system blames society, and amid all the finger-pointing, nobody does the serious introspection needed to question the attitudes and beliefs that provide the means to rationalize the prejudices at the heart of pervasive problems.

But what I’ve read so far might not be representative of the whole.  Stay tuned.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers