I attempted to register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary.

The seminary I attend, Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS), is part of the Association of Chicago Theological Schools (ACTS), which "was formed in 1984 by twelve theological schools located in the Chicago area to provide means for cooperation among the member institutions in the areas of student cross-registration, library access and acquisitions, interchange among faculty members in the disciplines of theological education, and communications between the schools."  - http://www.actschicago.org/index.html

Students at ACTS schools may register at other ACTS schools:

Available to the approximately 3,000 students currently enrolled at its member schools are 400 faculty, about 900 courses offered annually, and library collections of 1.7 million volumes and nearly 5,000 currently received periodical subscriptions.
   - http://www.actschicago.org/index.html

Except, in the case of at least one school, if you're gay.

Now, granted, there is a stated exception:

Exceptions to the process of cross-registration exist (1) during the summer term when tuition is normally paid to the school offering the course; (2) for D.Min. courses other than Pastoral Care and Counseling and for those students in the ACTS D.Min. in Preaching Program; and (3) in certain courses with limited enrollment. Each school in ACTS reserves the right to limit enrollment in certain courses for pedagogical reasons and to set its own policies for the admission of students from other schools to such courses.
 - http://www.actschicago.org/catalog2009/cat06.html#how, emphases mine.

I attempted to cross-register for a class at Northern Baptist Seminary (which has the awesome domain name of seminary.edu). I was aware that the seminary was more conservative, and I did not expect it to be easy to take a class there. But I was willing to sit with far more conservative students in a far more conservative school, in part to keep from having my graduation date from being pushed back another two years, and in part because I do not want to be estranged from my more conservative brothers and sisters in Christ.

I didn't want to go stealthily into the seminary for several reasons. First, I am not ashamed of who I am, nor the path taken to get here. While I don't advertise my sexual orientation or transgender history to everyone, I don't take steps to hide these parts of my life either. To do so is to walk in shadow, and I prefer to be in the light.

Second, to hide an aspect of one's life can result in feelings of betrayal should the secret be found out. It is damaging to a relationship when trust is broken: witness what happened with Ted Haggard.

Third, even if the secret is never found out (unlikely as a simple web search will find enough information about me), keeping a secret from those with whom one is in relationship creates an inauthentic, dysfunctional, and, dare I say it, sinful relationship.

So, to be as honest and authentic as possible in my relationship to the class, I sent e-mail to the professor teaching the class. I explained my background (Evangelical Free, Bible Students, Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, and United Church of Christ), my school affiliation (CTS), and my sexual orientation and transgender history. I asked for advice on what I could do to make the situation easier for everyone involved.

I did not expect the culture clash to be easy. I also did not expect, however, to be rejected from taking any classes whatsoever.

My e-mail to the instructor was apparently forwarded to the administration who, in a very polite but firm e-mail, explained to me that the school's admission policy is applied to cross-registered students. The seminary, in their catalog, under code of conduct, states:

In matters related to homosexuality:

1. Northern will not knowingly admit as a student any person having a homosexual lifestyle.

2. If, without the knowledge of the Admissions Committee, a person is admitted to the Seminary and is found not to be a practicing homosexual, but to be striving to overcome homosexual tendencies, such a person will, in Christian love, be counseled to obtain the best help available so that with the power of God such a person may overcome the problem.

3. If, without the knowledge of the Admissions Committee, a practicing homosexual is found to have been admitted to the Seminary, when such knowledge is discovered, such said practicing homosexual would be counseled to seek education elsewhere and to enter some other vocation, and failing voluntary withdrawal from Northern, would be disallowed to continue at the Seminary.

4. In no case would the Seminary recommend for ordination or for ministry any practicing homosexual or an advocate of a homosexual lifestyle.

5. Congruent with its policy of institutional integrity, Northern Baptist Seminary will not hire a practicing homosexual or an advocate of a homosexual lifestyle, and it reserves the right to dismiss from employment any such person on the grounds that it would conflict with the purpose of the institution.
- http://www.seminary.edu/about/PDFs/Seminary%20Catalog%202008-2009%20Revised.pdf

This means they are reinterpreting the ACTS policy to say:

Each school in ACTS reserves the right to limit enrollment in all courses for pedagogical reasons and to set its own policies for the admission of students from other schools to all courses.

This in order to prevent any homosexuals from taking any courses at their school, ever.

Northern Baptist may believe my twenty-one year relationship with my spouse to be sinful and unChristian. They may believe my transition, twenty-five years ago, to living as my identified gender to be a violation of Deuteronomy 22:5.

They may well object to my behavior off school grounds, but they were not going to change that by rejecting my cross-registration. They can't make me a straight white male again by denying me the chance to study with their professor and students.

So exactly what is sinful or harmful about my taking a class at their school? Exactly what is made worse by my presence there?

At their school, I'm certainly going to hear about their viewpoint on homosexuality and transgender issues - especially since the class I was going to take was on the Pentateuch, which includes Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Were they afraid that I would rebut the reading of the few verses applied to homosexuals as they were glossing over the dietary laws, mixing of fabrics, wearing of tassels, uncleanness of women during their periods and after giving birth, trimming of beards, and the Jubilee year? Were they concerned that I would point out that Levitical law says nothing about Lesbian relationships? Did they worry that I would point out that the word "know" in Genesis 19:5 is the same as the word "know" in Genesis 18:19? (I really wasn't planning on it.)

And, perhaps more to the point, how is this following Jesus' example? Did Jesus teach only the holy? Did Jesus not teach prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, Syrophoenicians, Roman soldiers, and (at the cross) thieves and murderers?

I am disappointed that Northern Baptist Seminary chose to not honor its covenant with the Association of Chicago Theological Schools.

I am also sad that sixty faculty and staff are more afraid of me than I am of them.

My church is Plainfield Congregational United Church of Christ, part of the Eastern Association of the Illinois Conference of the United Church of Christ.

When Tyra Hunter was 24 years old, she was riding in a car in Washington, D.C. Her car was broadsided by another car. She was knocked unconscious due to the collision, but regained consciousness by the time emergency crews arrived. She was still dazed and had respiration problems because some of her teeth had been knocked into her airway.The paramedics went to work on Tyra, but in assessing the injuries they discovered she had male genitals.

At this point, one of the caregivers said "This ain't no bitch. It's a nigger. He's got a dick and balls." The paramedics ceased treating Tyra and instead laughed and joked about her while onlookers demanded they get back to work on her.

Later, after treating another injured passenger, other emergency workers found Tyra gagging and trying to move away from the insulting paramedics. Finally, a supervisor demanded that her airway be cleared.

In addition to these insults and lack of care, she was received at the hospital as "John Doe", given a contraindicated medication, and was not given blood that had been ordered for her. She died from lack of oxygen in her blood.

This is the kind of health care some transgender persons can expect. Value judgments can override common decency and mercy - and the basic job requirements. Amazingly, the District of Columbia defended the paramedics on the basis of their first amendment rights to free speech.

Time and again, I come back to what Jesus taught about how we treat others: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". "Love your neighbor as yourself" . The parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the person who acted as a neighbor to a victimized person was the one who didn't even get along with people of his kind. The parable of the sheep and the goats, where Jesus says that as you do to others, you do to him.

And yet, this is what we can expect from some of the people who choose a career in caring for others.

This is not how to do health care.

This is not how to do emergency care.

This is not how to be a Christian.

This is not how to be a human being.

Whatever one's opinion of transgender people, they are people. There is no excuse for allowing people to suffer while we laugh.

My prayer is that the paramedics learn to care for all others, and that they do not need to experience what Tyra did in order to learn it. I would not wish that on my enemies - because I love them.


Trial notes: http://www.gpac.org/im/tyra/tyindex.html



Remembering our dead: http://www.gender.org/remember/.
Transgender Day of Remembrance is November 20.

No commentary today - just the real work concerns of a real human being.
   
http://rebeccaaugephd.blogspot.com/2007/10/returning-to-work-concerns.html

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

Think about this.

We are all one.

There are no distinctions.

Imagine if we, as Christians, stopped making distinctions between people.

Imagine we stopped distinguishing between people based on color of skin or national origin or citizenship.

Imagine we stopped distinguishing between classes.

Imagine we stopped distinguishing between genders.

Imagine we valued each member of the body of Christ equally - both in and out of church activities.

Imagine we supported each member fully, and didn't distinguish based on where one came from, what kind of work one did, or what gender role(s) one fit.

Imagine we took this idea further and applied it to all of humanity.

Just imagine.
   

     As someone who transitioned over two decades ago, I don't have much to fear with respect to being called out on gender identity. I have much more to fear due to my identity as a lesbian in a 17 year relationship. Yet I am unwilling to use my privilege as an apparently cisgender person to grab for protection as a Lesbian while leaving behind my less privileged brothers and sisters.

     It is morally wrong for me to abandon my brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells of two respectable leaders who chose not to help a man who was robbed, beaten, stripped naked, and left for dead. They knew they were at risk of becoming ritually unclean, requiring them to turn back to Jerusalem - a costly delay.

     Yet a Samaritan - who didn't even get along with the Jews - was so moved by the man's situation that he stopped to help and even paid to have the man stay at an inn and recover.

     We have the opportunity to stop and help - even if it causes us delay - or to walk on with the hope that the man will not suffer too much waiting for us to come back

     If it is more difficult to pass ENDA with transgender language included, what does that tell you? It tells me that more people are willing to accept discrimination against transgender people and, therefore, transgender people need this law even more than gay and Lesbian people do.

     Waiting until people don't want to discriminate before passing an anti-discrimination law makes no sense.

     Waiting until people don't want to discriminate against a class of people before passing an anti-discrimination law to protect that class makes no sense.

     I'm siding with the Samaritans on this. Walk on by at your own risk.

     We live in a very independent culture. We're big on personal responsibility, and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". That rugged individualism often leads to a "somebody else's problem" mentality where we don't want to get involved.

     In the fight for gay and lesbian rights, a lot of opposition has come from conservative black churches. Indeed, many black men will not identify as gay or bisexual, although they have sex with other men "on the down-low". So for black men who have sex with men, there is a cultural tearing between fighting for their equal rights as African Americans and fighting for their rights as men who have sex with men (MSM).

     And when Human Rights Campaign (HRC) stood up for the black students in Jena, Louisiana, many gay and lesbian people shouted "this is not our fight".

     Now, due to the backlash from conservative groups, Congress is removing protection for transgender people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). So do I support this as a Lesbian, knowing that I will be protected from being fired or evicted based only on my sexual orientation? Or do I reject this because it I can still be fired or evicted because of a transition I made two decades ago?

     For me, this is not an academic argument. It's a choice between some protection and "all or nothing". When ENDA was first proposed, HRC actively worked to exclude protection for transgender persons, with a promise to revisit the issue later to include us. They have since come to support inclusion.

     It's easy to say "at least we'll get some protection" and cut off a segment of our population. After all, it's not really a loss to transgender people: we don't have protection now anyway! Yet the more we divide ourselves up into smaller and smaller groups, the weaker we become. Should there be separate gay employment and lesbian employment? What about bisexuals - when they're in straight relationships, they're already part of the majority! What about the straight-looking straight-acting folks - they can "pass", so why should they support leathermen and bulldykes?

     One of the consistent themes of the Bible has to do with how we treat our brothers, sisters, and neighbors. In the Bible, people are constantly looking for a way to lop off a group of people. For example, the priests and scribes wanted to not have to worry about foreigners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and the other unclean.  Yet Jesus pointed out that everyone is a neighbor. Paul pointed out that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We are all of the same flesh - all human, and we cannot have one of us suffer without it affecting the rest of us.

     It's not just the body of Christ, it's the family of humanity. There is no reason to leave any of our brothers and sisters behind. There is no reason to draw a line - a division - between us.

     And when we do, we weaken the body. We become small and isolated. We become individuals with individual problems, and not a community that works together for justice for everyone.

     For me, I will not support this bill that will half-protect me and protect some of my brothers and sisters but not others. And I will not support those legislators who are willing to defer justice for some in the name of expediency.


sources:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49423.asp
http://transadvocate.com/enda/last-ditch-effort-the-right-wing-whopper-lies.htm
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/homotextual_charles_haynes.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_nontransgenderinclusive_enda_no_way.php
http://www.gendertalk.com/?q=node/239

     A young man of only thirteen years wrote an amazing essay, entitled "An Experience that Changed Me". I will just quote the closing paragraph:

I know people from lots of different kinds of families. Some families are divorced, so some of my friends only live with one parent at a time. Other families have someone who is mentally challenged in their family. But no matter how different they are, they are all people. My goal is that some day everybody will be treated with love.

     No wonder Jesus said "suffer the little children to come unto me". The openness of this young man shows great promise. I pray he does not lose sight of his goal.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.

Pretty words, aren't they?
Last week was the Independence Day weekend.
I got to thinking about this phrase, and the way we think about it.

The Founding Fathers' Original Intent

I've heard this so many times.
It troubles me.
Because, for all their fine words about equality,
these people had only grown slightly from the attitudes of the Royalty that was in power.

All MEN are created equal

There are those that say "Men" is inclusive of all humans.
If so, why were women not allowed to vote?
No, the "Founding Fathers" did NOT believe in women's equality.
But it went farther than that.

ALL men are created equal

ALL? Really?
Either they didn't really mean "ALL", or they had an odd definition of "MEN"
The slaves were certainly not equal.
Nor were the people who were already here when Europeans first came to this continent.
In fact, even if you WERE a European male, you could not vote if you did not own land.
Is that "ALL"?

How far we've come

The American Revolution was the beginning of growth from the Monarchy.
But we had a lot of growing to do.
We believed in the right to confiscate land of "lesser" people who had been there before us.
We believed in the right to own other people, particularly those from the continent of Africa.
We believed that women were incapable of contributing to the democracy.
We've grown a lot since then.
But we're not done yet.

More growing to do

Our country has expanded freedoms for many.
We've offered women and people of color a voice in our government.
We no longer own other people.
And we've made token reparations to some of the peoples pushed off their land by our ancestors.
We need to grow more. In law, and in spirit.
Until our laws and our people show the world that we believe
All are created equal.

Celebrate Diversity

Do you REALLY believe in Diversity?

This Flag started as a Gay & Lesbian flag. Perhaps that is all it should ever be.

If so, then we should stop attaching "Celebrate Diversity" to it.

I think that would be very sad.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that this flag represents diversity. What might the stripes represent?

Red is as close as this flag gets to pink.
We all recognize the pink triangle as the mark used by the Nazis to brand homosexual men.
Of course, some of us would not like to be associated with "obviously" gay men.
After all, men who exhibit the stereotypical traits recognized by society as "homosexual" just make it harder for others to be accepted as "normal."
So let's leave them out.
If they're going to be "flamboyant", they'll get what they ask for.

Maybe Orange is the color of the more "normal" gay and lesbian people.
Closeted? Maybe.
There are a lot of ads in the personals for "straight looking, acting, seeks same."
Some of them are even Republican.
Some of them are "Pro Life."
Maybe they're not queer enough to be part of the Gay Rights movement.
Let's leave them out.

This is pretty close to the middle. Let's say this color represents bisexual people.
After all, that's what many people say about them.
"Straddling the fence."
After all, they can go back to being heterosexual any time they want.
Maybe they don't really belong.
Let's leave them out.

What about the transgendered among us?
After all, they're not REALLY a part of the "Gay Community".
Yes, a lot of straight people associate them with us, but do we really want that?
When we say "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" we don't mean queer THAT way.
And what are we talking about anyway?
Straight men who like to dress up?
Or those awful sex-change people who can't even accept themselves as God made them?
Let's leave them out.

Their flag is Blue and Black, with a White stripe and a Red heart.
Some of us are uncomfortable with the S&M community.
I guess that's natural.
Some of us are victims of abuse.
Some of us are sympathetic to those who were abused.
To many, S&M symbolizes this abuse.
I suppose we can do without them.

Purple.
Lavender
Lesbian.
Do lesbian women really understand the "gay rights movement"?
After all, they have all their feminist agenda.
And AIDS is not a big factor in the lesbian community.
They just don't understand.
Let's leave them out.

Oops.

No flag left.
Where is that diversity we were celebrating?

Look at the flag below.
Decide which color you don't want in your flag.
Decide which kind of people you want to distance yourself from.
Decide which kind of people you feel superior to.
Maybe even decide which kind of people you hate.