Tempest in a Pee Pot Redux

In June 2015, I posted my first blog article on trans people, and my 5/20/16 blog post was titled Tempest in a Pee Pot. This issue has been in the news again this month, so I am writing about it once more—and in addition, I am referring again (first here) to this month’s Transgender Day of Remembrance.

Sarah McBride (2024)

Sarah McBride (D-Del.) was elected this month to the U.S. House of Representatives. She will be one of 125 women in that position. But Sarah (b. 1990) will be the first trans woman ever to serve in the U.S. Congress—causing what, again, I am calling a “tempest in a pee pot.”

As has been widely reported in the public media this month, another female House member, Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), introduced a resolution on Nov. 18 to ban transgender people from using U.S. Capitol restrooms other than those designated only for their gender as identified at birth.

Mace (b. 1977) described McBride as a “biological man trying to force himself into women’s spaces” and as a “guy in a skirt.”

It is reported (here) that “Nancy Mace’s Christian faith serves as a guiding force in her life. … This unwavering commitment to her beliefs empowers her to speak out against anything that she perceives as conflicting with her faith.” And her faith means saying trans women must use men’s restrooms?!

Not surprisingly, Mace’s position in opposition to Rep. McBride using women’s bathrooms at the Capitol was supported by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga).*¹ Greene has publicly said, "Men [such as Sarah McB.] should be banned from women’s restrooms in every federal building paid for by taxpayers."

Tim McBride was elected student government president in 2011 when he was a sophomore at American University (AU) in Washington, D.C.*² Fifteen months later, the day after he finished that term in office, Tim made a startling announcement in the school newspaper: he was becoming Sarah.*³

I don’t understand how people transition from one gender to another as adults or even why they think it necessary to make such a life-changing decision. But I accept the fact that a small percentage of the population do make that transition and often face hateful discrimination for doing so.

When Tim became Sarah in 2012, she was largely supported by the faculty, staff, and students at a university that broadly affirmed the self-chosen identity of LBGT people. But things nationwide have gotten a lot worse since then, especially for trans people.

But currently, as opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg posted (here) in The New York Times on Nov. 26, “It’s hard to imagine how terrifying it must be to be a trans person, or the parent of one, in America right now.”

Goldberg goes on to say, “Donald Trump and his party, having triumphed in an election in which they demonized trans people, seem hellbent on driving them out of public life.” The title of her article is “There Is No Excuse for the Bullying of Sarah McBride.”

Sarah McBride is only one of some 500,000 trans women in the U.S. That is a large number, but still a very small percentage (about 0.15%) of the nation’s population. Nevertheless, most of those 500k trans women are bullied as Sarah is—and many in ways much worse than by bathroom limitation.

Each year, November 13~19 is designated as Transgender Awareness Week. It leads to Transgender Day of Remembrance on Nov. 20, a day to remember all the trans people who have been murdered in the previous year. In the last five years, around 175 have been killed, 60% of them women.

The anti-trans rhetoric of current national politicians such as the two women mentioned above and the bulk of the leadership of the Republican Party and their MAGA supporters seem to lack recognition of and compassion for hurting people. This is contrary to the love of neighbor proclaimed by Jesus.

As I wrote at the end of my previous blog post, the driving force of my life for the past seventy years (and more) has been, and still is, doing my utmost to be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. My support for Sarah McBride and for all trans people facing hateful opposition is based on that commitment.

_____

*¹ Greene (b. 1974) is another problematic Christian. She was reared as a Roman Catholic, but in 2011 she was rebaptized and became a member of an evangelical megachurch in her home state of Georgia.

*² Here is a link from “The Eagle,” AU’s student newspaper, telling about Tim’s election with some of his background and plans for the coming year and beyond graduation. There is also a large picture of him.

*³ This link is to a June 2012 transcript of AU’s radio broadcast telling of Tim’s transition to Sarah. A picture of Sarah at that time is included with that article.  

Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?

The U.S. Democrats want equality. The Republicans oppose equality because they want to protect religious freedom. But does equality vitiate (= destroy or invalidate) religious freedom? Or does/should religious freedom vitiate equality? Those are questions now confronting the polarized U.S. Senate. 

From BreakPoint's website, 
which strongly opposes the Equality Act

The House-Passed Equality Act

On February 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a far-reaching measure that has been decades in the making and would prohibit public discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Prior to the House vote, on Feb. 19 Pres. Biden issued this official statement: “The Equality Act provides long overdue federal civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, locking in critical safeguards in our housing, education, public services, and lending systems.”

Leaders from groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign argue that the Equality Act ensures that gay and transgender Americans are no longer fired, kicked out of their housing, or otherwise discriminated against due to their sexuality or gender identity.

The Equality Act of 2021 was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 224-206. Every Democrat in the House voted for it, but only three Republicans did.

The Senate-Opposed Equality Act

As things stand now, the Equality Act is not likely to be passed by the U.S. Senate. That is because of the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to pass most legislation. Far more than 40 of the 50 Republican Senators are opposed to the House-passed bill.

Perhaps the main reason for the Republican opposition is their unwillingness to approve anything favored by Democrats. But the primary reason given publicly for their opposition centers around “religious freedom” concerns.

If full equality of LGBTQ persons becomes the law of the land, religious leaders and/or institutions can no longer discriminate against, or denounce, such people.

Such discrimination or denouncement is based on religious beliefs that homosexual activity and gender transitioning are contrary to God’s will, the Bible, and/or traditional religious practices.

Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?

I have been a long and persistent advocate for religious liberty. People should be free to hold religious beliefs and to engage in religious activities without interference by others, including—or especially—governmental interference.

But what if one’s religious beliefs/practices infringe upon the civil rights of other people? Shouldn’t the civil rights of all take precedence over the religious rights of some?

The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That was a good and important bill that has helped eliminate much—but, unfortunately, not all—harmful discrimination in this country.

But there were those who thought that that bill impinged upon their freedom of religion.

For example, ultra-conservative Bob Jones University in South Carolina, which thought that the Bible opposes the mixing of the races, as most Southerners thought from before the Civil War, continued to oppose racial equality until the year 2000.

In a radio broadcast on Easter Sunday in 1960, Bob Jones Sr., the school’s founder, explained: “If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible.”

Jones had the right and the constitutional freedom to make such a statement. But the government had the right to champion the civil rights of all citizens, and eventually Bob Jones University had to enroll Black students and then even permit interracial dating.

Bob Jones Sr. and Bob Jones Jr. didn’t have to change their religious beliefs, but they did have to change their school’s practices because of its negative impact on other people.

Isn’t it the same now with regards to LBGTQ people? People should be free to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. But in practice, civil rights, the right of full social equality, must be upheld for all people.

Equality doesn’t vitiate religious freedom. But the religious freedom of some must never be allowed to vitiate the civil right of equality for all.

_____

Here are some pertinent online articles that deal with the central issue of this post:

Equality Act stirs passions about the definition of religious liberty and RFRA’s role (Mark Wingfield, Baptist News Global, March 8)

LGBTQ rights bill ignites debate over religious liberty (David Crary, Religion News Service, March 8)

What’s in store for the Equality Act, and why do some religions want a revision? (Yonat Shimron, Religion News Service, Feb. 26)

Do No Harm Act (Human Rights Campaign, Feb. 25)

What about Political Correctness?

In his first inaugural address in March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Nevertheless, responding to the widespread fear expressed by people across the nation, on February 19, 1942, FDR took harsh measures toward people of Japanese descent who lived in the U.S.

As a result of his Executive Order 9066, approximately 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry, almost all of whom were law-abiding citizens, were evicted from their homes on the West Coast of the U.S. and forced to live in internment camps across the country.

That was grossly unfair to the vast majority of a whole group of people who were peaceable residents in our nation.

During World War I, German-Americans were sometimes accused of being sympathetic to Germany. The U.S. Justice Department attempted to prepare a list of all German aliens, counting approximately 480,000 of them—and more than 4,000 of them were imprisoned in 1917-18.

I don’t know if my great-great-grandfather Hellmann made the Justice Department’s list or not, but he was born in Germany in 1844 and was living in St. Joseph, Mo., during WWI.

Even though his birth name was probably Johann Friedrich, in this country he went by John Frederick. The census records have my grandmother Laura Cousins’ grandfather’s name as just Fred Hellmann, so he probably didn’t suffer much anti-German discrimination.

But many German-Americans did suffer unjustly because of their name and/or their ethnicity.

The term “political correctness” has been used for many years now, often in a derogatory sense. There are, certainly, some excesses related to what is said, or not said, because of what is said to be political correctness.

On the other hand, when used positively political correctness describes the attempt not to use discriminatory or demeaning language about other people, especially about those who are “different” from the one speaking.

Thus, those who want to be fair emphasize politically correctness for the sake of women, who are often denigrated by men; for the sake of people of color, who are often discriminated against by whites; for the sake of gays/lesbians, who are often demeaned by straights; and for the sake of Jews and Muslims and others adherents of other minority religions in this country, who are often looked down on by many, including some Christians.

Tom Toles is the eminent editorial cartoonist for the Washington Post. Even though I do not have his permission to do so, perhaps since I make absolutely no money from this blog he will not object to my using this perceptive cartoon of his:

As I wrote recently, the President has often been criticized for not using the term “Islamic extremists.” His critics say that this is a grave mistake rooted in the idea of political correctness. During the Dec. 15 presidential debate Ted Cruz declared, “Political correctness is killing people.” Earlier last year, Donald Trump emoted, “I’m so tired of this politically correct crap.”

And about a year ago Ben Carson declared, “There is no such thing as a politically correct war.”

But even in times of war, or especially then, people who are not combatants and especially those who are American citizens, need to be protected from hatred and prejudice.

Combating Racism/Sexism

The Society of Christian Ethics (SCE) held its annual meeting in Washington, D.C., last week, and I was happy to be able to attend it again, as I did last year in New Orleans.

One of the enjoyable things about going to academic meetings such as the SCE is seeing old friends and acquaintances, even though since I spent most of my career in Japan I don’t know very many of the people at such gatherings here in the U.S.

Two of the people I did enjoy seeing again this year were graduate school friends and colleagues of my daughter Karen. Miguel De La Torre and Stacey Floyd-Thomas were in the Ph.D. program with her at Temple University, and both of them were speakers in the same session I attended last Friday.

Miguel De La Torre

Miguel is a Cuban-American, and he talked at some length about the prejudice and mistreatment of Cubans-Americans (and Latinos/as in general) in the U.S. Stacey is African-American, and she talked, also at some length, about the prejudice and mistreatment of African-Americans in general and especially of African-American women. But in spite of the odds against them, Miguel and Stacey have become two of the most prominent members of the SCE.

Those who attended the SCE meeting this year, as every year, were perhaps close to 80% white American males. But Miguel, who is a professor at Illif Theological Seminary, was elected president of the SCE for the coming year. And Stacey, a professor at Vanderbilt Divinity School, is currently serving as the Executive Director of the SCE.

In spite of their minority status Miguel and Stacey are in positions that by far most of the “privileged” white males will never find themselves in. And they are certainly deserving of the positions they hold in the SCE, for they are outstanding scholars—and outstanding human beings.

Thus, it is obvious that some people can and do rise above the discriminatory structures of society. Miguel and Stacey are prime examples of that. Miguel shared some about the struggles of his mother, an illiterate Cuban woman, in this country. But he has become a widely respected scholar and ethicist, attested to by the fact that he is now the SCE president.

I certainly agree, though, with Miguel and Stacey in what they say about the entrenched prejudice against people of color, against people of recent immigrant families, and against women. And I appreciate the work they are doing to combat that prejudice.

In spite of people such as Miguel and Stacey, why are there a disproportionate number of the homeless, unemployed, and financially struggling people in this country people who in race, gender, and ethnicity are the same as these outstanding scholars? The lingering deep-seated prejudice toward Blacks, Hispanics, and women is, no doubt, one of the foremost reasons.

Can only a very select few, people with outstanding intellect and character traits such as are evident in Miguel and Stacey, overcome the odds against them? Perhaps. That is why we need to join them and other like-minded people in continuing to work against the entrenched racism and sexism in a society that continues to be characterized by white (and male) privilege.