Darkside Rainbow

Guys? No post today. Yesterday was a wreck, I got behind on work again, and I need today to catch up. I can’t even think of anything gay-related to say today.

Wait.

I hate Elton John.

Now we’re topical.

See you tomorrow.

-Adri

Why am I tagging this?

Thomas Beatie has been on my mind a lot lately, mainly because I’ve been wondering what I would do in his situation, and if I could even go through with what he’s doing. One question led to another, and suddenly a million chaotic theories and thoughts were chasing each other around my mind, issues related to reproductive rights, societal behavior… everything. And out of that came more questions still - well, you see where this is going. Although these are questions that I asked myself (or more like rationalized out along a train of thought), I’d like to ask you as well. I’ll provide my own answers below each question; I’d like to hear your answers in the comments.

1. If you’re male or FtM, imagine that you’re capable of conceiving and carrying a child to term. If you’re female or MtF, imagine that you’re capable of impregnating a partner. If you could and your partner wanted it (whether it’s the only option for childbirth or one of many), would you?

Not just no, hell no - mainly because children give me the creepy-crawlies and I’m about as child-friendly as ball pool filled with rusty razor blades. I think people should have the right to pursue such avenues (such as a transwoman impregnating a biological female, or a transmale being impregnated by a biological male/artificial insemination) if that’s what makes them happiest, as it shouldn’t matter how the child was brought into the world or which parent was involved in what part of conception as long as neither parent was harmed and the child is wanted and happy. I just couldn’t do it myself, and any partner who asked me to wouldn’t be someone I’d end up with long-term, because it tends to ruin relationships if your partner doesn’t respect your decisions about children - whether you want them or not. Besides, I may have an extremely high pain threshold, but not high enough to squeeze something the size of a basketball out of any orifice of my body. No thank you, though I admire those who can.

2. Do you believe that doctors have the right to refuse treatment to patients based on their personal beliefs?

Again, hell no. I think doctors have a moral obligation above their personal beliefs, and that moral obligation is to see to the health and well-being of all their patients - which means performing procedures that they might not morally agree with. Can you imagine what would have happened to Thomas Beatie if every available doctor refused to treat his ectopic pregnancy because of personal beliefs? He could have died. The obligation to a patient’s life and its preservation stands far above any personal or religious beliefs. As long as the procedure is not damaging to the patient’s or anyone else’s mental or physical well-being, then yes, the doctor is obligated to perform it, and perform it to the best of their abilities. I can’t refuse to do one of my writing projects just because I object to my client’s obnoxiously masturbatory self-image based on my personal beliefs, and my work doesn’t even affect one’s health.

This can get into shady grey areas when it comes to optional procedures such as cosmetic surgeries or gender reassignment surgeries, but I’ll cover that in my answer to the next question, as I think that relates to safeguarding the patient’s mental well-being as well when it comes to allowing them to live happily as their chosen self without the struggles (depression, stress, etc.) that can come from being denied what they need.

3. Specifically in relation to reproductive rights: Do you think that doctors have the right to refuse to perform vasectomies on men or hysterectomies, tubal ligations, or implantation of contraceptive devices in women and FtMs based on their eligibility to breed?

…only in very specific situations, and only with consultation from an unbiased outside party.

Before you crucify me: I think that anyone, male or female, should have full control of their bodies and definitely of their reproductive systems - but I do understand somewhat why some doctors deny patients. Many doctors have been victims of malpractice suits by patients who said they wanted a certain surgery, then years later changed their minds, couldn’t have it reversed, and sued their doctor for allowing them to go through with the decision and rendering them unable to conceive. That’s one reason that doctors often deny people who are still of safe childbearing age.

But there are other reasons that I really can’t agree with - mainly patriarchal and religious stances that value a person’s ability to breed above the person themselves, their desires, and their health. Even if it would make them miserable, even if they’re staunchly against ever having children and are quite certain of their own minds, they’re told placidly that they’ll change their minds (because of course everyone wants children, it’s inconceivable that someone wouldn’t) and denied contraceptive surgeries…even if they’re getting them not to avoid children, but to transition from one gender to the other. Some people even view people who have such surgeries as sluts, who just want those surgeries so they can have indiscriminate sex with anyone and anything moving.

Those views, restrictive and condescending and dehumanizing, I cannot abide. Yes, some people do change their minds and regret it later, because they made hasty, impulsive decisions - but there are people capable of making up their minds after lengthy self-analysis, and there are perfectly normal, respectable people who just don’t want children. Ever.

The problem arises when asking a doctor to determine which is which. While a physician or surgeon is a licensed health professional, not so many serve double duty as a licensed mental health professional, capable of determining if a person is capable of making this decision in an educated adult fashion. The easiest way is just to say no, period, unless they can determine that the person is in actual physical danger and requires the procedure.

Or you could just bring in a licensed therapist.

Seriously; that would keep everyone’s balls out of the grinder. Why not make 6 months of professional therapy a pre-surgical requirement? The therapist would counsel the person on their reasons for wanting surgery to remove or limit their reproductive organs, whether it’s gender reassignment or just a serious desire not to have children, make them aware of the eventualities and pitfalls, ask all the right questions so that they analyze their motivations and don’t make the wrong decision…and at the end of the six months, determine if they’re in sound enough mind to be certain of the decision. At the end of the 6 months, both the therapist and the patient sign off on the counseling, with the patient also agreeing that they still stand by their decision and thus can’t sue the therapist or surgeon for malpractice. With that signature from the therapist, the doctor should then be bound by law to perform the procedure.

Wishful thinking, eh? Then again, there’s also the problem that the burden of personal beliefs then shifts to the therapist, who could still make judgments based on personal beliefs whether they’re supposed to or not and even though they’re trained to offer counsel without personal influence.

Then again, it’s my experience that mental health professionals are better equipped to handle these things than doctors, and can be a bit less biased…or at least put aside their bias more easily.

…now stop looking at me like that. I went to therapy voluntarily for a few months so I could kick my familial issues to the curb and get on with my life. I’m crazy, but I’m not that crazy.

So what are your answers? Would you, could you, should you?

thomas and nancy beatie, pregnant transman, male pregnancy, gender dysphoria, transgenders, transsexuals, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, gender identity disorder, reproductive rights, reproductive surgeries, hysterectomy, vasectomy, omg!babies!

Death of a Gay Soldier - ABC News

Major Alan Rogers was an intelligence officer who trained Iraqi soldiers. An IED in Baghdad killed him while he was out on patrol. On March 14, he was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

The Washington Post reported at the time that Rogers’ commanding officer wrote to his family: “As God would have it, he shielded two men who probably would have been killed if Alan had not been there.”

According to the Washington Blade, Rogers was also treasurer of the D.C. chapter of the American Veterans for Equal Rights, which works to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

Because Rogers, it turns out, was gay.

Some, such as Andrew Sullivan, have been quite critical of the fact that Rogers’ orientation has been omitted from media accounts of his death.

Writes Andrew: “to enforce the closet even after his death cannot be explained except by a view that somehow being gay is shameful or private. I can see why outing someone who is alive and closeted is unethical; inning someone who is dead and was out is a function of utterly misplaced sensitivity, rooted in well-intentioned but incontrovertible homophobia.”

It may seem strange, but at first I took the other side. Gay or straight doesn’t matter when you gave your life in defense of your country and to save the lives of others; to act as if being gay somehow made his act more noble than it would have been if he was straight is a bit of a double standard, even if it does take a bit more gall to willingly lay down your life for a country that says “I don’t want you.” But he could have gotten out at any time. He could have publicly outed himself beyond his participation in a group striving for equality and been dismissed, and he didn’t. He chose to remain quiet, stay, and serve his country. That, along with how he lost his life, makes Major Rogers someone to be respected.

And it was that line of thinking that turned me around and made me think, “Then maybe yes, people do deserve to know; it was a part of who he was, and it shouldn’t be omitted from his life after his death.” But I still balk at this; maybe it’s my views that we’re so much more than our orientation, and I’m sick of us being boxed in as gay first and everything else after. Major Rogers was far more than a gay man and activist, and yet were those things to be mentioned in his obituary, that’s all that many of the general public would see. They wouldn’t see an honorable man who fought for others, a son, a brother, an uncle, a friend, a compatriot - whatever he was to so many people.

All they would see is a gay man, and the stereotype flung over that like a cloak to hide everything else that he was.

Is it right? No. Does that change that it’s a popular perception that too many of us perpetuate? Unfortunately, no. And would everyone think that about Rogers if his obituary had made mention of his sexuality? Of course not. America isn’t a hive mind and people have diverse perceptions and beliefs, and many people know that being gay isn’t something that you have to hide or be ashamed of - just as many people are violently opposed to it. So I can’t agree or disagree with the decision to leave his sexuality and activism out of his obituary. On one hand it would have given hope to other gay servicemembers, and maybe even shown some of those “don’t ask, don’t tell” proponents that he didn’t ask, he didn’t tell…but he still gave his life for them, and a gay man was just as good as they are.

On the other hand, it could have brought down unnecessary prejudice on his family in a time of grief when they didn’t need to deal with anything more. And in the eyes of many, it would have demoted him from a brave, honorable soldier to “just another fag.” Maybe mentioning it in his obituary would have been an act of defiance against the prejudiced. Maybe it would have been pointless. And maybe it would have just been another nuance on his life, that didn’t make a wave at all.

So I don’t know what to think. I don’t know which way to stand. The only thing I can say for certain is this:

Rest in peace, Major Rogers, and thank you.

Just don’t start playing “Taps”.