NYT 'Ethicist' Chuck Klosterman

The New York Times’ “Ethicist,” Chuck Klosterman, offered a disappointing response to a transgender reader on Friday. The reader wrote in to explain that she was beginning to transition to living as a woman, but she was struggling with how the transition might impact her wife and three children. Klosterman suggested that it was a question of happiness, and that perhaps the reader was better off not stressing her family with the news:

You believe you will “find happiness” only by being your true self — but that’s not exactly accurate. You describe your marriage as happy, you love your children, and your career is (at the very least) satisfying enough to make you worry about how a gender transition might complicate things. There is happiness in your life. Now, I realize what you’re referring to is a deeper, existential version of happiness that all people crave (and which goes far beyond having a good relationship or a good job). There are, however, many people who never experience that level of happiness, regardless of how they view their sexual identities. Even if you become someone else, you may never find it. So what we’re really weighing are the ethics of taking an irreversible gamble that will potentially improve your own interior life while significantly reinventing the lives of those around you. [...]

Is your psychological damage from gender dysphoria greater than the psychological damage that its restoration will inflict upon the lives of any (or all) of your children? If the answer is yes, proceed. If the answer is no, don’t do it. Your sadness is tragic, but at least it’s confined to yourself.

This unfortunate response does little to affirm the experience of this reader or transgender people in general. Ami Kaplan, a New York City Psychotherapist who works with trans patients, wrote this thoughtful response:

What is really happening?  As a therapist who has specialized in Transgenderism for the past 18 years I know that people of this age come to see me when they can no longer live with their Gender Dysphoria.  It’s not about happiness; it’s about no longer being able to continue as they have in the past.  Gender Dysphoria is an intense, psychologically painful and anxiety laden state which can intensify over time to the point of being intolerable.  Gender is our first and most intimate identity, and to have that be wrong in some way is deeply disturbing.  I have had many people say some form of:  “there is no choice, it’s either this or I kill myself”.  Furthermore, transitioning is a process of becoming who one authentically is.  I think that’s a pretty good lesson for kids.

The ‘problems’ inherent in all this is that there is significant stigma and discrimination around being transgender in our society.  The only way to combat this is for brave people to acknowledge and be who they are and try and maintains good relationships with those around them.   I think if we envision a person in other (and now less) stigmatized groups in Mr. Klosterman’s article, the issue becomes clearer.  For example – an African American man in, say 1940 wanting to marry a white woman, or a gay person of the same era wanting to be an “out” school teacher… all things that the individual’s family would have not been too happy about.  Transgenderism is at the point in its own unique history of discrimination evolution where these groups were 30 years ago.   Is it easy to have a family member who is a member of a stigmatized group?  No.  Is the answer to have that person disavow their membership and suffer in silence in order to not embarrass anyone?  I don’t think so.

Kaplan’s comparisons to past forms of stigma are compelling. Klosterman applies ethical implications to coming out as trans where there are none, merely because societal acceptance of the trans community continues to lag behind the gay community and other groups. What is unethical is when people condemn a trans person for simply identifying as they are. What is unethical is forcing people to live decades in secret shame while they deny their true identities. What is unethtical is blaming trans individuals for their own sadness and the pain they might cause others by choosing to finally be authentic.

Klosterman could not be more wrong that the reader’s tragic sadness is “confined” to herself. Indeed, she is the only person who is not responsible for her turmoil.

A new study on bullying among young people in England has found that it does, in fact, “get better” for gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. The study followed over 4,100 teens over the course of seven years and measured the rates at which they were bullied. According to the findings,LGB youth experience higher levels of bullying at age 13-14 than their heterosexual peers, but those rates decline over time at similar rates. At age 18-20, only gay and bi boys still reported distinctly higher rates of bullying and harassment than their heterosexual peers:

The study also found that LGB youth show more emotional distress than heterosexual youth, but that could also be impacted by societal messages. The researchers posit that these results would be similar in the U.S. GLSEN’s studies suggest that bullying starts in elementary schools, escalates through middle school, and decline toward the end of high school, but the rates are problematically high across all age levels for LGB youth.

A couple who runs a bakery in Oregon has refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple planning to marry, claiming it’s against their beliefs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa owner Aaron Klein explained to one of the brides-to-be and her mother that they could not provide a cake, prompting the women to walk out and disgust. Klein says he’s okay with gay customers buying his products, but he cannot approve of a same-sex wedding:

KLEIN: I believe that marriage is a religious institution ordained by God. The book of Genesis talks about that: For this reason, a man should leave his mother and father and cling to his wife. That to me is the beginning of marriage. [...]

I have no problem with [gays]. I have customers that come in almost on a weekly basis that are homosexual. I have no problem. They can buy my stuff, I sell stuff, I talk with them. I mean, it’s fine.

Watch a local news report about the controversy:

The same-sex couple has filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Justice, claiming they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Oregon has had a law protecting against such discrimination since 2008.

Reports of couples similarly being denied cakes have been reported over the past few years in other states like Colorado and Iowa.

Bishop Francis Malooly

Catholic Bishop Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Delaware has joined his fellow bishops in attacking marriage equality in anticipation of the state passing legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Without once acknowledging the existence of gay people or their families, Malooly uses his pastoral letter to claim that they are nonetheless destroying the institution of marriage because of their selfish motives:

We live in a society in which these good purposes of marriage are not well understood.  We live in a society that has driven wedges between sex, marriage, and procreation – a society that has separated what God has joined together.  We live in a society that has increasingly embraced the notion that marriage is about adult life-style choices.  Many have forgotten that children are its most precious fruit and an essential part of its meaning.  Children contribute “very substantially to the welfare of their parents” in the words of the Second Vatican Council.  In a world that tends to see children as an economic burden or a life-style choice, the Council reminds us of the joy and humanizing challenge that children bring to adults.   In caring for children adults gain not only love and affection but high purpose and growth in character.

If unrestrained romanticism damages marriage so also does its opposite – the individualism, isolation, and plain selfishness of our era.  Out of fear or because of the pursuit of other goals fewer people are marrying.  This has led to a host of often unrecognized problems, not least of which is the withholding of the gift of new life.  Living according to God’s design for life and love does not mean that couples cannot plan their families.  They can do so in moral and responsible ways. But fear of marriage and parenthood and the relentless pursuit of pleasure and economic advancement threaten authentic happiness and the fabric and future of society itself.

By this narrative, the Church should be attacking its own opposite-sex couples who choose not to have children. Instead, Malooly ignores the millions of same-sex couples who want to marry because they already have children. There is no “fear of marriage and parenthood” among the LGBT community; there are people actively pursuing the challenges of a committed relationship and raising a family in spite of not having society’s support. If Malooly’s points have any validity, they don’t apply to the opposition of same-sex marriage.

This week, the executive board of the Boy Scouts of America will reconsider the organization’s policy of barring gay Scouts and leaders. As a result of this proposed change, many conservatives are urging the group to maintain its discrimination.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has written extensively about how the Boy Scouts affected his life, and he reiterated those thoughts to hundreds of Texas Scouts who gathered in the state House of Representatives on Saturday for their annual Report to State. Speaking to reporters afterward, Perry defended the discriminatory policy:

PERRY: Hopefully the board will follow their historic position of keeping the Scouts strongly supportive of the values that make Scouting this very important and impactful organization. I think most people see absolutely no reason to change the position and neither do I… To have popular culture impact 100 years of their standards is inappropriate.

Perry also disagreed that a change would make the Scouts more tolerant, claiming, “I think you get tolerance and diversity every day in Scouting.”

Fellow former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has offered a similar screed against the proposed change in the Scouts’ policy, suggesting the board’s vote this week is “a challenge to the Scouts’ very nature” that will cause a “mass exodus,” “leaving the Scouts hollowed at its core.” Indeed, a whole coalition of anti-gay hate groups is calling on the Scouts’ to maintain the policy because of the false assumption that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

Over the weekend, President Obama disavowed all of these claims in a pre-Super Bowl interview, saying that the Scouts should drop the policy because “gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life.” Obama has previously condemned the policy because he “opposes discrimination in all forms.”

Over the weekend, France’s Parliament approved a crucial aspect of the propose marriage equality bill. With a vote of 249-97, the Deputies approved the article of the bill that will define marriage as an agreement between two people of the opposite or same sex. They also scrapped an amendment that would have allowed mayors who object to same-sex marriage opt out of conducting them. With this vote so successful, proponents believe the full bill will now pass with ease.

Still, the bill faces some 5,000 amendments — literally — that conservative opponents have filed as a delaying tactic. Arguments against marriage equality in France sound similar to those used in the U.S., such as UMP MP Philippe Gosselin, who offered this slippery slope claim: “Today it is marriage and adoption. Tomorrow it will be medically assisted conception and surrogate mothers.” Still, with 63 percent of French voters in support of the bill, these arguments and tactics are not likely to faze the socialist lawmakers intent on passing full marriage equality.

Watch the historic vote: