Slowly, but surely!

It’s been sometime since I last posted anything. Things have been hectic in Europe and I haven’t had that much time to sit down and write. So, from a hostel in Paris, here goes…

I’ve haven’t been keeping up with current events worldwide, but I just came across the news that on May 15 the Supreme Court in California made the landmark decision to overturna ban and legalise gay marriage. I would hope that many of you already know about this fantastic event. The Supreme Court has said it would be unconstitutional to deprive anyone of the right to marry the person of their choice. This is an incredible decision. Of course, they are not the first community in the world to decide to legalise gay marriage. This decision would make them the second state in the US to do so, the first being Massachusetts in 2004. But for a community like California to do so confirms that, despite all that is wrong with the world, we are finally moving in the right direction.

I’m not aware of all the details at the moment. I will do some reading when I get the time. But for now, here are some articles that I think you should read:

The Advocate – [1] [2] [3]

New York Times

BBC

The Age (Melbourne, Australia

These are primarily links from the Advocate, who have been covering the event with obvious interest. I think it best to hear from the LGBT community on this issue, at least primarily. But, that does not mean it is an issue or a decision that will effect only them – this is an international issue. I have included news items from the US, UK and Australia, but I have found little English language responses to the issue outside the West. If you are aware of any, please let me know!

In any case, if California can make this decision, then perhaps we can strive to have gay marriage legalised in Australia and the rest of the world.

On a personal level, I have very strong views on the issue. I do not accept, for one moment, the idea that marriage is strictly an institution that belongs to heterosexual couples. In the 21st century, such an idea is absurd. Such heteronormativity belongs in the dustbin of history. The destruction of our own environment and other such horrors aside, we are supposedly a progressive species. I also don’t agree with the argument that comes from some in the LGBT community that advocating for gay marriage is only buying into such a heteronormative institution. Those people in LGBT relationships should be given the right to choose to recognise their relationship however they wish, and marriage should be one of their options.

I apologise for the hasty manner in which this post has been put together. I was very excited at hearing this news and just had to write something. In the coming week, I will endeavour to put together a more substantial piece on the issue. For now, we can celebrate and hope for more news like this from across the globe. California is not enough! Keep on fighting!

The Beatie pregnancy.

I’ve been meaning to write on this topic since the story broke on March 26. Alas, I’ve been a little preoccupied. So, after much procrastination, I blog.

Before I get really get into things, I wonder how many have been following this. I’ve seen some coverage on the online versions of The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. In fact, a new article appeared in The Age online today. I’m unsure if it has appeared in the print version (which I rarely purchase). I do know that it’s been all over the internet, particularly in US news sources.

The story of Thomas Beatie, a pregnant man, is whipping up quite a storm. Thomas is technically not the first man to become pregnant – fellow transman Matt Rice bore a child after artificial insemination, however he was not legally recognised as a man – but I believe Thomas is the first to receive widespread media coverage as well as being the first to write about his experience. Before you go “WTF? Pregnant man?” here’s some background to the story.

Thomas Beatie is a transman – a female-to-male transgendered individual. After undergoing a chest reconstruction and hormone therapy, Thomas (formerly Tracy Lagondino) chose to keep his female reproductive organs while identifying and being legally recognised as a man. After discussion with his wife, Nancy, it was decided that he would bear their child, after Nancy had a hysterectomy some years earlier. Thomas took a number of steps to prepare his body for the pregnancy, included stopping his intake of testosterone. After their first attempt at insemination, Thomas had a near-fatal ectopic pregnancy (with triplets) that resulted in the removal of one fallopian tube. On their second attempt, a successful uncomplicated (so far) pregnancy. This is where the story heats up.

Thomas wrote a piece in The Advocate, a US-based LGBT magazine. I’m won’t bother going into detail – you can read the article for yourselves here. What got to me the most was Thomas’ description of the discrimination he and his wife have encountered. Sure, some might say, what they’re doing is unnatural, so they should expect some level of discrimination – I say bullshit. Any couple, no matter what their sexual orientation and relationship may be, should not face any form or degree of discrimination when seeking to start a family. Thomas and Nancy, like many others, wish to love and care for a child of their own. Whether they wish to bear this child themselves or adopt a child is of little importance. The fact is that the prejudice faced by Thomas and Nancy forced them to induce their pregnancy by home insemination, which resulted in the first pregnancy that could have cost Thomas his life, rather than under the care of medical ‘professionals’ and common reproductive treatments.

In saying this, I don’t believe I’m being unnecessarily utopian – I’m being realistic. The only thing that should matter is that a child has the chance to grow up in a loving family. Who the parents are is of no consequence, so long as that child is safe and cared for. What is worse is a parent who spreads their despicable hatred and prejudice to their children, which only serves to propagate such abhorrent discrimination.

It’s interesting to see how this issue has been treated by the international media. Somes sources even suggest that it is all a hoax. Thomas and Nancy’s so-called neighbours have been quoted as saying that they had seen Thomas only days before the article in The Advocate and he didn’t appear pregnant at all, and that the photograph (above) is fraudulent. Personally, I put this down to some media outlets antipathy to alternative lifestyles. I could be wrong. All this is not to say there hasn’t been any positive coverage of the issue. However, from what I have come across so far, Thomas and Nancy have been treated with scepticism and, in some cases, denigration. What comes to mind is that despite all the LGBT advocacy and activism over the past four decades, it seems that transgender issues always take a back seat. I’m hesitant to use the term ‘taboo’, but it almost seems appropriate.

In any case, after a week without any comment from them, Thomas and Nancy are breaking their silence. Of all places, they’re doing it on Oprah. The episode airs this Thursday in the US and I’m sure there will be many eyes and ears, mine included, glued to what the couple has to say and the eventual aftermath in the media.

The Advocate has published a powerful response to the media coverage, written by Robert Haaland. Read it here – it’s a rather valuable response from a member of the LGBT community. And, among other things, it’s also a lot more interesting than my rant.

Like many others, I wait to see the Oprah interview and I look forward to the safe arrival of Thomas and Nancy’s daughter on July 3.