In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom yesterday ruled unanimously that biological sex is the determining principle in the Equality Act 2010. Lord Hodge, Deputy President of the court, read out the ruling to a packed chamber:
The Court made a very thorough review of all the applicable laws in its carefully reasoned 88-page ruling, which you can read here if you have a couple of hours to spare. Or you can read a much shorter W\ikipedia summary here. I am no lawyer, but despite some banner headlines in the world's press, it seems to me that the Court has confined its ruling to the interpretation of the law as it stands right now, and has not set a sweeping change in stone.
But what do I know. This ruling will have far-reaching effects in British law. However, my fellow Americans should understand that Britain has no written constitution as we do; instead, the fundamental legal principle over there is parliamentary supremacy - meaning, Parliament can pass any law it wants to, on any subject, at any time. However, in actual practice, British lawmakers are effectively restrained by custom, tradition, political opposition, and public opinion.
(The King is technically part of Parliament, but he has no say-so. Contrary to what you may think, he does not run the government; the government runs him. He pretty much has to do whatever the Prime Mininster "advises.")
Your Head Trucker is a gay man, happy with his male body (though not particularly with the shape it's in at this late age); transgenderism is a very different thing, and I prefer to leave it to transgender people to speak for themselves out of their own experiences, rather than presuming to speak for them. The same goes for lesbians and bisexuals, and all the other colors of the rainbow. For that reason, I do not accept for myself the LGBTQI-XYZ-whatever label, which wrongly confuses several important but separate issues. I'm just plain gay, and that's good, and that's all there is to it. Your mileage may vary.
I will also note that according to the best research now available, transgender people are relatively few, only .3% to .6% of the adult American population - that's 3 to 6 people out of a thousand. (Gays and lesbians are 3% of the population, or about 3 out of a hundred, which means they are about ten times more numerous than trans people.) By a simple arithmetical operation, then, it would seem that 99.9% of the population are happy with their birth gender. Or in other words, they are simply human beings - male and female, as it was in the beginning. It's the exception that proves the rule.
Thus, the fashionable urge to divide the world into "cisgender" and "transgender", or even worse, to hold up "gender-neutral" as a benchmark for everyone, seems to me very much the tail wagging the dog - "cis" is an utterly needless label for me. Others may disagree, of course. And certainly transgender people - those who are not merely "me-too" attention-seeking wannabe-cool-kids - like the risible 20% in a recent poll, fake news if ever there was any - deserve to be true to themselves and free to be who they really are. But not to rewrite the English language, or hold a kind of permanent veto over the 99.9%, which would only cause great resentment.
The fabric of a liberal democracy can stretch to include many different kinds of people - but stretch it too far, and it will rip. In some ways, it already has.
It has taken more than 50 years and much struggle for the enlightened part of society to come to terms with the concept of innate - not "chosen" - homosexuality, and it will take more time for us all to truly understand the trans experience. Enlightenment rarely happens all at once; like a flower, it must grow and develop step by step.
However, this particular case is deeply disturbing to me, not only because it is in Texas, but also because it strikes at the heart of democratic principles and the American ideals of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" -- not to mention the "free and full development of personality" enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The attack is not even based on a state law, but merely the governor's edict - his whim - a prime example of dictatorial persecution, completely unconstitutional. The sooner the courts strike down this filthy fascist attack on Texas children and parents, the better.
When the gender police come for your kid:read this chilling interview with the Briggle family highlighted in the above video.
A Texas judge today blocked Texas child-abuse authorities from investigating parents of transgender children or removing those children from their homes pursuant to an order by Republican Governor Greg Abbott and a non-binding opinion issued by Attorney General Ken Paxton, whom I posted about earlier this week. The judge set a trial date of July 11 to hear the case. The Texas Tribunereports:
State District Judge Amy Clark Meachum ruled Friday that providing gender-affirming care is not a reason for the state to investigate a family for child abuse, and halted all such investigations.
The statewide injunction will remain in effect until “this court, and potentially the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of Texas” hear the case, Meachum said.
Meachum said there is a “substantial likelihood” that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal will prevail in getting Gov. Greg Abbott’s directive for such investigations permanently overturned, calling his actions “beyond the scope of his duty and unconstitutional.”
Vox interviewed a Houston dad earlier this week. Excerpt:
“It’s just who they are, so we support them,” said Claudio, the father of a trans teen in Houston, who is being referred to by a pseudonym to protect his family’s privacy. “Getting tarred with the label of ‘child abuser’ for doing that is demoralizing and obviously pretty horrible.” . . .
"It’s been pretty scary. It’s been the cause of some internal family division. My wife and my kid are more defiant. 'We should fight this. This is where we live and this is the time to take a stand.' I’m a lot more of a scaredy-cat and just want to move to a different state where my children’s future is not in doubt.
My wife immediately caught on to the fact that this was a non-binding opinion from the AG that basically cascaded through the governor to child protective services. She thought at the beginning that nothing would actually happen and that it was political posturing more than anything that would have consequences, while I was pretty scared. There was a lot of anger and dispute about it. We had our differences there.
I think to some extent we’ve both been validated. The ACLU and Lambda Legal strongly state that it is in fact a non-binding opinion and has no real weight and they’re contesting it in court. We’re watching the court cases hanging off the edge of our seat, of course. But at the same time, child protective services has started investigations, famously this one of their own employees, which has super ugly overtones.
There is part of me that is just scared that the gender police is going to come knocking on my door. We’re scared, and we’re frustrated and we’re very sad that this is happening in our home. . . .
But I don’t know how much risk we’re going to be willing to take, so at some point, we might decide to cut our losses and pick up and leave [Texas]. We don’t want to, but my family left Europe after World War II, after they were [targeted] by the Nazis, and that’s a lesson that gets etched in your brain pretty strongly even through generations. Persecution scares you extra.
These cruel, arrogant bigots with a long history of anti-gay activity are now persecuting transgender kids and their parents in Texas, threatening them with jail and fines for "child abuse" for supporting their child's medically supervised gender reassignment. Read all about it in this post over at Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:
A state district judge placed a temporary hold on the investigation of one family yesterday, which Prick is trying to get overturned. Read more at the Texas Tribune, a non-profit investigative website:
Students at one state unversity held a protest of the anti-trans order today; I hope there will be more protests against this unconscionable and unconstitutional invasion of privacy statewide. I can't believe any higher-level court, state or federal, will let it stand. As I understand it, this persecution is not even based on a state law, just Prick's legal opinion, which is not legally binding. I'd like to tell him where to stuff it.
Wow! Oh my, what a happy, happy day - the Civil Rights Act protects the gays and trans folk too:
Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.
Hooray! Read the Court's 6-3 ruling (172 pages, PDF) here.
NBC News reports today's stunning decision:
And your Head Trucker is ashamed to report that he did not really get the whole trans thing until he learned about Aimee Stephens - who, sadly, died last month of kidney failure:
According to the ACLU, this is the first trans civil rights case ever heard by the Supreme Court.
In short: If you don't have time to read the whole decision, Amy Howe at Scotusblog offers an overview of the ruling, written by Justice Gorsuch - remember how everybody feared he would be such a conservative jurist? - as well as the dissenting opinions. Among other things, she notes:
Gorsuch addressed some of the broader concerns that the employers had raised in the three cases, about the effect of the court’s ruling on issues like bathrooms in the workplace, locker rooms and dress codes. None of those issues, Gorsuch reiterated, were before the court in these cases. Instead, he stressed, the court is ruling only that an “employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.” Whether sex-segregated bathrooms or locker rooms or dress codes might violate Title VII “are questions for future cases,” Gorsuch wrote.
The same is true, Gorsuch added, for questions involving the relationship between Title VII and federal laws and constitutional provisions protecting religious freedom. Although “other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful consideration, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way.”
Caution: It appears from a quick glance at the Wikipedia article on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the law applies only to an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year"; however, your Head Trucker is no lawyer, and you should consult an attorney if you have any questions about the law.
Silver lining: Michelle Goldberg opines in the New York Times on the irony of this decision in the era of Trump:
[T]he thrilling 6-3 decision the Supreme Court just issued upholding L.G.B.T. equality wouldn’t be as devastating to the religious right if it had happened under a President Clinton.
Before Monday, you could legally be fired for being gay, bisexual or transgender in 26 states. Now the court has ruled that gay and transgender people are protected by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. The decision has extra cultural force because it was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, and joined by the conservative chief justice John Roberts. . . .
The phrase “But Gorsuch” is shorthand for how conservatives justify all the moral compromises they’ve made in supporting Trump; controlling the Supreme Court makes it all worth it. So there’s a special sweetness in Gorsuch spearheading the most important L.G.B.T. rights decision since the 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
This isn’t simply Schadenfreude. The fact that this momentous ruling was written by a right-wing judge sends a message that progress on L.G.B.T. rights will be very hard to reverse.
More is needed:Justice Kavanaugh's dissent is well-written, well-reasoned, and well worth reading in full, going as it does to the very heart of constitutional government in these United States. Susan Howe summarizes:
He began by acknowledging that the arguments for “amending” Title VII “are very weighty.” He also observed that the Supreme Court “has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans ‘cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’” But, he continued, the job of judges is “not to make or amend the law,” and, as it currently stands, “Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.” . . .
Kavanaugh contended (and appeared to agree with his colleagues in the majority) that courts should follow the ordinary meaning of the words in a statute, because that is how both members of Congress and the public would understand the law. . . . And here, in Kavanaugh’s view, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “discriminate because of sex” does not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation. . . .
Kavanaugh concluded by acknowledging “the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.” But Kavanaugh reiterated his belief that Congress, rather the Supreme Court, should have been the source of that result.
Frankly, your Head Trucker is inclined to agree with Justice Kavanaugh on the simple basis of plain English. In all honesty, it does seem like doublespeak for Justice Gorsuch to say on the one hand that the Court must be bound by the plain text of the law; and on the other hand, to define the word sex with a meaning that is not part of the plain English meaning. To say that cat means all four-legged creatures is not to state the meaning of the word, but to add meaning to the word.
However, if a law were to forbid, let us say, cruelty to cats, and you interpret it to mean that cruelty to all four-legged animals is forbidden, then that is good morality, but bad English and bad interpretation, and highly liable to be contradicted by another interpreter. Because it is good morality, we will accept what the Court has so graciously given us; but can we count on it to be a lasting gift as years go by? Or merely a cupful of smoke?
It's also important to note that the Court's ruling does not rest on any constitutional right; the justices based their decision solely on the Civil Rights Act, which is merely a federal law, not the Constitution itself. Therefore, to remove all possible doubts and objections in future, it is imperative that Congress itself amend the Civil Rights Act to specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Do keep that in mind, fellas, as we move forward - always remember that the Supreme Court can change its collective mind, and often has, down through the years. The protections we received today must be cemented into federal law at the first opportunity.
The same goes for for the right to same-sex marriage declared by the Court five years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges - which Chief Justice Roberts angrily dissented from at the time as another example of "legislating from the bench."
Of course, Congress can change its mind, too, and laws can be repealed; even provisions of the Constitution can be changed or removed by amendment. Nothing in this life is ever entirely sure and certain forever; but a law enacted by vote of the People or their representatives is somewhat harder to overturn than a court decision, especially if it reflects the popular will of the time. And according to the polls, it seems that equal rights for gays and trans folk is indeed the popular will in America at this time, by about 2 to 1. So let's be sure to nail this ruling down in law.
Meanwhile, again I say: Hooray! The gays are people too. We have a right to exist. And work and live and love, just like everybody else on this planet. Hooray! Hooray! God bless America!
And I have lived to see this day.
Bonus: Former President Obama tweeted out this message today:
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter yesterday announced the immediate lifting of the ban on open military service by trangender people, five years after the ban on gays and lesbians ended with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
For the record, yesterday's cover story in Vanity Fair is something your Head Trucker never expected to see in his lifetime, for several reasons. It will take time for everyone to get used to the idea, but that's only to be expected. Transgender and gay issues are two very different things - what I can relate to is the feeling of being excluded from society, and having to hide who you really are, 24/7.
So all good wishes to Caitlyn in this new segment of her life.
Matt Baume of the American Foundation for Equal Rights reports:
And some long-awaited good news today from the White House, the Washington Postreports:
President Barack Obama on Monday gave employment protection to gay and transgender workers in the federal government and its contracting agencies, after being convinced by advocates of what he called the “irrefutable rightness of your cause.”
“America’s federal contracts should not subsidize discrimination against the American people,” Obama said at a signing ceremony from the White House East Room. He said it is unacceptable that being gay is still a firing offense in most places in the United States. . . .
Since Obama announced that he would take executive action, he’s faced pressure from opposing flanks over whether he would include an exemption for religious organizations. He decided to maintain a provision that allows religious groups with federal contracts to hire and fire based upon religious identity, but not give them any exception to consider sexual orientation or gender identity. Churches also are able to hire ministers as they see fit. . . .
The change for federal contracting will impact some 24,000 companies with 28 million workers, or one-fifth of the U.S. workforce. Many large federal contractors already have employment policies barring anti-gay workplace discrimination. However, the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School estimates that the executive order would extend protections to about 14 million workers whose employers or states currently do not have such nondiscrimination policies.
While few religious organizations are among the biggest federal contractors, they do provide some valued services, including overseas relief and development programs and re-entry programs for inmates leaving federal prisons. . . .
Obama also amended an order signed by President Richard Nixon in 1969 to prevent discrimination against federal workers based on race, religion, gender, nationality, age or disability. President Bill Clinton added sexual orientation, and Obama will include gender identity in a change that will immediately take effect.
Debi Jackson, a self-described "conservative Southern Baptist Republican from Alabama" shares the story of her daughter A. J., who transitioned from male to female at age 4, in this speech given last May in Kansas City:
The family was profiled in the Kansas City Star in February of this year. Debi has set up a blog called Trans-Parenting to help bring attention and clarity to the issue of transgender children.
In 2009, David Kaufman, M.D., and his wife Cathy both realized they were gay about the same time. About six months later, David realized he was not only gay, but trans, and he is now Danielle. The couple have since written a book about their experience, entitled Untying the Knot. CBS Sacramento reports:
Well, your Head Trucker wishes them all the luck in the world. Still, it's hard to understand how someone can not realize they are gay until middle age - it certainly was very clear to me when I was 14. Some folks are just late bloomers, I guess, or came from very rigid, mind-controlling families perhaps. I don't know.
Dr. John Corvino is chair of the Philosophy Department at Wayne State University in Detroit and the author of several books, including What's Wrong with Homosexuality?
Former Navy Seal Kristin Beck, once part of the team that later hunted down Osama Bin Laden, slammed convicted wikileaker Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning today on her Facebook page - via Joe.My.God.:
What you wear, what color you are, your religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity has no basis on whether you are a CRIMINAL or NOT. For this person, whether male or female to use gender identity to act 'BADLY' is a slap in the face to me and everyone who does not fit the 'Binary Gender Norm.' It is not an excuse for anything illegal or unjust. This person took an oath to protect American interest and defend the constitution, and took additional oaths due to security clearances to protect information that leaders deem secret. There are legal avenues to whistle blow or bring attention to issues. THIS person is a liar and a thief and a traitor to many people. If Bradley is truly 'Chelsea' then 'she' is a traitor to ME personally. There is no excuse.
Beck published her memoir, Warrior Princess, earlier this year, recounting her life as a closeted transgender person while serving in one of the toughest military outfits anywhere. Here's an interview Anderson Cooper did with her after the book came out:
Well I've read some things today that I thought about sharing with you fellas, but for some reason I just don't have the oomph to work any of them up into a blog post. It come up a storm this afternoon about 4:30 and we got a good little shower of rain. But it got so dark outside it made me feel like time to go back in the chicken house and roost for the night. So I'll just post the links here and let y'all read the ones that pique your interest; they're all quite fascinating, for various reasons.
The speech given by President François Hollande to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the Vel d’Hiv Roundup on July 16 and 17, 1942, when the French police arrested 13,152 Jewish men, women, and children from Paris and its suburbs, and confined them to the Vélodrome d’Hiver, a bicycle stadium in Paris. They were later deported to German concentration camps.
For years, your Head Trucker has been meaning to get up to Archer City and wander through renowned author (Hud, The Last Picture Show, Lonesome Dove, even the screenplay for Brokeback Mountain, etc.) Larry McMurtry's book store, but now it's too late: after fifty-five years, he's selling out and closing down.
A small cosmetic jar found on a remote island in the Pacific offers new clues in the Amelia Earhart mystery. [Be sure to click on the "More Photos" link.]
Kit home author and researcher Rosemary Thornton laments the wanton destruction of a unique and lovely Montgomery Ward home built by an aspiring Ohio homeowner in 1932. Be sure to click the links to her previous posts on this topic too.
A resolution authorizing the blessing of same-sex couples - not marriage per se, but still a formal ceremony in church - was approved on Monday night by the House of Bishops of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church now meeting in Indianapolis. It now must be approved by the House of Deputies (clergy and laity), which is expected to do so in the next few days. I'll update you all when that comes to pass.
The full convention also approved ordination of transgender clergy on Monday.
In the meantime, here's a short but very moving documentary I just found about what marriage really means - I know my truckbuddies will appreciate it:
A powerful, joyful, deeply moving film about trans people from Integrity USA, the LGBT group of the Episcopal Church. I've been wanting to see something like this by and for trans people for a long time, it's very well done.
Honk to my truckbuddy Frank at Reluctant Rebel for finding and posting this first.
Chaz Bono's new book, Transition: The Story of How I Became a Man, has just been published. Here he talks in candid detail about the process of coming to terms with his real self:
I wish him all good luck and much happiness. I can't help thinking how much harder it must be to come out - if that's the right phrase - as a transman, when it's damn hard enough to come out as a gay man. I admire his courage and honesty.
I could say more, but since I have more questions than knowledge, guess I'll leave it there.
Joe.My.God. has posted this anti-trans video by MassResistance, a hate group in Massachusetts:
Which seems to fall awfully far short of its target to me. First of all because, despite the scare captions throughout the video, it's obvious there is no mass panic in the restrooms of the hotel, nobody screaming or running for their lives, and even the cleaning lady is going about her routine in a perfunctory way as if it was all just business as usual.
Second, looks like a very mild party to me. I would say dull even, but maybe it's one of those things you just had to be there.
By way of contrast, here's a very nice informative video by GLAD that ought to put any sensible person's mind at rest:
Now I will say I think the whole restroom thing needs to be thought out and discussed a little further. I can't imagine guys who wear dresses are going to the ladies' room to rape anybody; but still, we all need as a society to reach a comfort level about this issue. And problem is, people just don't know enough about trans people to feel comfortable with the whole thing yet. We need more educational videos like the GLAD one.
Way too many people still don't understand the whole gay thing, let alone the trans thing, ya know. And I have to say, it pisses me and lots of other gay guys off big time that people are still thinking, even at this late date, that all gay men love to wear dresses and makeup and big hair and bling.
Now I don't know what all you big city boys are doing, maybe you're all out in drag every weekend, but just for the record let me be clear on this point: I do not want to wear a fucking dress. Ever.
Christianists got in teh gays' faces during protests yesterday at the Fort Worth City Hall. Mike Lee reports in the Star-Telegram:
The City Council voted 6-3 late Tuesday to expand its anti-discrimination ordinance to include transgender people, capping a marathon debate over a series of gay-rights proposals that were forwarded after a controversial inspection of a gay bar.
A majority of council members spoke in favor of the proposal when it was introduced last week. The inspection at the Rainbow Lounge in June left a man injured and sparked protests in the city. Fort Worth officials appointed a task force to recommend ways to mend fences with the gay community shortly afterward. The vote dealt only with one facet of the proposals: expanding the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance to include transgender people. The ordinance already prevented discrimination based on race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.
A lot of the debate, though, centered on broader proposals, some of which the council has already tacitly approved. City staffers will be trained on dealing with the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, and the Police Department has appointed a liaison to the community. Other recommendations will require further study, including offering domestic-partner benefits and expanding the city health insurance plan to cover gender reassignment procedures, including sex changes.
Very amusing video report here for all you big confused, effeminate, hellbound sissy sodomites:
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, harmony; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that I may seek not so much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.
.
We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love.
and welcome to the Blue Truck, a blog for mature gay men with news and views on gay rights, history, art, humor, and whatever comes to mind. Plus a few hot men. The truck's all washed and gassed up, so hop in buddy, let's go.
CAUTION: For mature gay men only beyond this point. Some posts and links may not be suitable for children or the unco guid. You have been warned.
Insert valid picture ID with date of birth now, or click here.
My Story
click photograph to read
Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?
It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual. You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred. It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society.
If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God.
Note, 9/15/26: For the past week, Blogger has not updated most of the posts in this sidebar. I don't know what to do about it. You can still access the websites below by clicking on the titles of each one.
