January 27, 2017--Phone Call From Jack

"They gave me free access to your favorite website."

I hadn't spoken to Maine friend, Jack, for almost two months.

I was happy to hear from him though I was a little concerned. He had been having some health issues and wasn't much of a caller. He preferred face-to-face conversations. In the hope that all was well and to avoid hearing bad news, I said, "It looks like the winter weather up there hasn't been too bad."

Ignoring that, he said, "Aren't you going to ask me which one?"

Happy to sense he was OK, I said, "I was about to get to that. Which one?"

"For a month. The New York Times. For free. I never turn down anything that's free."

"You? The New York Times? I would have thought that . . ."

"As I said it's for free. Need I say more?"

"This is what you called to tell me?"

"But this couldn't wait until you guys get here in May."

"What's the 'this'?"

"You know I'm a Trump guy?"

"Do I ever. You're the first person I know who backed him and predicted more than a year and a half ago, while no one was taking him seriously, that he would not only win the nomination but also the general election."

I could feel him puffing up with pride at that acknowledgement.

"But back to the Times. Are you telling me you're actually reading it? I think of you as more of a New York Post and Fox News guy."

"That's me. Meat and potatoes. But I've been reading it. Not everything, but their stuff about Trump. It's so biased. For every positive story there are half a dozen negative ones."

"Did it maybe occur to you that Trump deserves this? Forget his policies--I know, elections have consequences--but all the stuff he makes up and doesn't tell the truth about. Like about how there were millions of illegal votes in November. Isn't that a legitimate story to cover?"

"Of course. And Trump is stupid to be pursuing it. It only distracts from all the good things he's doing."

Feeling feisty, I asked, "Give me a few examples of those."

"Obamacare, the wall, not allowing unvetted refugees to enter the country. These are a pretty good week's work."

I had spent the summer fighting with him about immigration and Obamacare and didn't want to relitigate any of that, so again I asked, "What's the story with you and the New York Times?"

"As I said, I hate the paper but, in spite of myself, took a look at the website. The first story that jumped out was about how the mayor of London, though he's not gay, likes to brag about participating in gay and transgender events. The article from a few days ago was titled, 'The London of London's Mayor.' I needed to know about what he does with his evenings? Some London."

"I saw that piece too and thought it was interesting and another example of how far we've come when it comes to LGBT rights."

"You and your liberal friends are so stupid." I had heard this from Jack many times, "I should let you wallow in self-involvement and identity politics. That way, Democrats will never again win the White House. Which is fine by me. But if you ever want to, you need to move on from some of these issues. Minimally, stop being so obsessed about them."

"I'm not obsessed about them but think they're important."

"Let me ask you this. With my access to the Times website I also had access to their search engine. So I entered 'transgender' and searched for articles that appeared in the Times during the past year. When I got to 50, though I was only about halfway through the year I stopped and took a look at how many stories there were just this January. Take a guess at how many? You read the paper every day so you should come close to the number."

"I don't know where you're going with this," I said, "But I'll play along."

"So, how many?"

"I'll say four."

"Wrong. As of two days ago there were already eight."

"That surprises me."

"Check it out. I don't want to be accused of using 'alternative facts.'"

We both chuckled at that.

"And now, how many transgender people are there in America to justify all this coverage?"

"I have no idea. Maybe 5.0 million."

"Wrong again. According to Google, there are maybe 1.4 million. Which represents 0.6 percent of the U.S. population." He paused to let that sink in, "More than 50 stories for half-of-one percent of Americans? You think that makes sense?" Before I could try to answer, he added, "Forget that it is to say the least tough to be transgender--and remember I'm Libertarian--but do you think paying so much attention to them is smart politics?"

"Maybe not, but it still could be a good thing to pay attention to."

"But shouldn't that paying attention be more proportionate to the numbers? How about maybe six stories during the year? Wouldn't that be enough to let readers know about transgender issues?"

"I'm still not comfortable that you feel everything, every social issues, has to be viewed through a political lens."

"Dream on, my friend," Jack said sounding exasperated. "It's paying so much attention to things of this kind that helped my boy get elected. You and your people just don't get it. You're so out of touch with what most of America cares about. You're trying to figure out why you lost. Well I can tell you--how many months did you and your friends and your New York Times spend on North Carolina refusing to allow kids in schools to use whatever bathroom they 'identified' with. If you're a girl and think about yourself, identify as a guy you can use the boys' bathroom. While you spent months obsessing about that, Donald was rolling up the votes. And thanks to you, more than me and my kind, he now sits in the Oval Office."

September 16, 2016--Gender Reassignment Surgery

This is not about Bruce Jenner but Chelsea Manning, a member of our Armed Forces who recently went on a five-day hunger strike to make her case that he, Bradley Edward Manning, her birth name, wanted to have a sex change operation at the Army's expense.

The military finally agreed and I presume the operation and hormone therapy will commence so that Bradley can finally become Chelsea.

Putting aside for the moment whether or not the military should pay for these treatments and surgeries, the Manning case is more complicated than it appears. Complicated because Chelsea Manning is serving a 35-year sentence in a military prison because as Bradley Edward, she passed along to WikiLeaks three-quarters-of-a-million secret defense documents.

So, how should one feel about this? Not "gender reassignment surgery" (though it's hard to resist remarking about this euphemism)--it is obvious that the process is a life-changing opportunity for thousands--but about the Army agreeing to allow Manning, essentially a spy, to have taxpayers pay tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for it?

If Manning had served his/her time and been honorably discharged, would the Veterans Administration hospital system agree to pick up the cost for the procedure? If the military is now more or less comfortable with openly transgender recruits serving in the Army, then it likely makes sense for the VA to underwrite and perhaps carry out the treatment.

But for a transgender inmate? Especially one who was convicted of the kinds of crimes that would yield a 35-year sentence? This is the first instance of the military agreeing to do so for a prisoner.

I suppose it is a form of progress since inmates are entitled to receive the kinds of medical treatment they require while serving their sentences.

If my cousin, a WW II veteran at 93 gets basic health care, hearing aids, and dental treatment at VA facilities, why not even a felon such as Chelsea Manning.

On the other hand . . .

Again, it's complicated.

Bradley Manning

May 16, 2016--Transgenderness

The things we manage to make ourselves crazy about.

At the moment--transgender toilets.

Last week the Obama administration notified all school districts that they must allow transgender children to use toilets for the gender for which they identify. For example, a physiological boy, if he identifies as female, would be allowed to use the girls' bathroom.

If schools fail to do so, they could expect to see their federal funding curtailed. No Trio money to support tutoring and other services for disadvantaged children, no support for Head Start, and if they have Race to the Top school reform money that too might be terminated.

As could have been predicted, though a few said they supported the new guidelines, for the most part school administrators, parents, and local elected officials went, well, ballistic. Some because of deep belief, others because it is an irresistible Culture War issue to demagogue. Perfect for the likes of Ted Cruz who is now back in the Senate but still fulminating.

Do we really need this hot button controversy? There are identity issues to be sure as well as practical ones. Also, what alternative is available for children who might be made uncomfortable by this edict? If transgender students have rights don't those who do not want to share bathrooms with them also have rights? How many different kinds of designated bathrooms do we need--for boys only, for girls only, for boys who are OK with sharing stalls with transgender girls, for girls who are accommodating to transgender boys who identify female.

I get both sides of this and, as a practical person, propose a simple solution. Far from perfect, here's what I suggest--

Transgender chidden should be allowed to use the toilet set aide for the school nurse. Pretty much every school has one. It's private and little used.

To put this in perspective, it is estimated that there are 700,000 transgender Americans. About 0.3 percent of the population. This includes adults as well as school-age children. This means that there might be up to 200,000 transgender students attending public schools. There are nearly 100,000 public schools in America. This means that in a 2,000-student high school, there might be 2 to 4 transgender students. 470-student elementary schools (the national average) would have disproportionately fewer. In some cases none at all; in other instances typically 1 or 2.

Whatever the number, it would hardly be a burden on the school nurses to share these lockable toilets with a few kids. And since many students do not even use the bathroom during the school day, what are we fighting about?

But then there is the stigmatization issue. It is very complicated being a transgender person. Especially for a young child. To be singled out for bathroom use as I am proposing could contribute to some children feeling exposed. Thus the mainstreaming movement for special-needs kids. To put them in classes with "typical" children rather than, as in the past, have special classes and in some cases separate schools for them.

But these children use "handicap" toilets and by doing so call attention to their differences. In bullying environments, this can be very disturbing. On the other hand, it reflects real life and a world that is often not accepting of any form of difference--color, religion, ethnicity, attractiveness, academic prowess, athletic ability, sexuality. School are not isolated from the rest of society. They reflect it. The good, the bad, the ugly.

Bottom line--people, including young ones, need to figure out how to live in the wider world. Especially when it is unfair. This may be one of those situations.

And isn't it ironic that this smoldering controversy is calling heightened attention to kids struggling with these issues. I am not sure this extra attention is helpful to them.