Visiting

• Its a bad situation, when I meet Dr. Superstar after nearly 4 years, the first thing he asks about is Epsilon, and then proceeds to tell me how he also now has a child. It doesn't help that the connection I want to draw between my work and his starts a philosophy discussion, since he is less aware of my particular sub-field than I'd thought.
• Pubs with obscure literary names make me very happy. Especially when I catch the reference.
• We all send off class signals, in the way we dress, the way we talk, and even how we carry ourselves. I don't know if we do this less in the US than in other countries, or if we are more likely to believe that the US is a classless society, and therefore we don't have a socio-economic class, but we all do it. I can't help the class signals I give off, but I do try to not be pretentious about it. So when I find myself surrounded by The Accent, I have to remind myself that I should not go running with my tail between my legs from my social betters; I do belong here, that in the US, I belong to the equivalent class. 
• The conversation on the train between the drunk guys next to me and the trans man in front of me sounds like I may need to intervene, until one of the drunks tells the trans man how one of his friends now wants to be a woman. Sometimes things go well.

Gender: M/F/T

An interesting headline attracted my attention. Apparently, this is not completely new news. In 2011, when Nepal conducted its census, it allowed for a third gender option for people who did not want to be identified as either male or female. The more recent headline is about the country issuing state IDs with a third gender option.

I've only been in Nepal as a tourist, and that over a decade ago. I don't know what it's previous record on violence against LGBT and its gender queer population is. However, this is a nice moment. And this is a wonderful picture, cycle rickshaw pulled dancers and all.

From CNN

Say it like a man

A little over a month ago, I sat down to dinner the night before a conference at the other end of the table  from a colleague. I have a lot of respect for this man as a scientist, he's done a lot for my personal career. I don't think I'd ever suggest to a female student of mine that she work with him, at least not unforewarned.

Colleague: Hey Barefoot, how are you liking University F?
Me: Um, I just got there, but its been good so far.
C: Have you checked out [foreign word] yet?
Me: What's that?
C: Its an interesting place.
At this point, since the conversation is being shouted across the table, everyone else who doesn't live in My City is curious what is being talked about.
Me: Could you tell me more?
C: It's like Disney Land.
Different colleague: You mean it has rides?
C: Well, yes, for adults. To me. You wouldn't like it.
The danger wave function that is present in so many non-scientific conversations with C collapses, and  I think "How do you know I wouldn't like it?" But any (more) discussion of sex and sexuality was not appropriate.
Me: Is this the red light district?
The woman across the table from me,  also from University F, nods, embarrassed.
Me: Why couldn't you just say that?

Weeks pass. It is late at night, and my computer is doubling as a radio. I follow a series of links to a show about prostitution. All of a sudden, I realize what I should have ended that conversation with.

Me: So C, you can't say "red light district" like a man? You call it Disney Land like a pubescent boy?

DOMA repealed

I am doing a little dance in my office chair right now.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/appeals-court-rules-doma-unconstitutional.php

An appeals court in Massachusetts has ruled that the Federal government has no interest in denying marriage to same sex couples. This is frankly awesome.

The judges stayed their order, anticipating an appeal to the Supreme Court. From the ruling:

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons and the extent stated above. Anticipating that certiorari will be sought and that Supreme Court review of DOMA is highly likely, the mandate is stayed, maintaining the district court's stay of its injunctive judgment, pending further order of this court. The parties will bear their own costs on these appeals.

So this does not mandate the US government allow a Tunisian man, who has married his male partner in Massachusetts, to file for citizenship on the basis of marriage. However, as I understand things, in the strange world of judicial review, it is now the "status quo" that the Federal government should allow such claims, and therefore it will take a little more effort on the Supreme Court's part to overturn such a ruling.


DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act, was enacted about a year after I came out publicly. It was one of the first concrete issues I really remember caring a lot about. In case you are not so passionate about this lovely piece of legislation, the key components of it are (according to Wikipedia)

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Section 3. Definition of marriage

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

This appeals only addresses Section 3. It does not force states to recognize same sex marriages conducted in other states, as the constitution requires states to recognize opposite sex marriages made in other states under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution (Article 4, section 1 in case you are curious), which says that states that give

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 There are legal battles to be won by constitutional scholars over the forthcoming years. But now that Congress has been prevented from "Prescribing" the definition of marriage, it would seem that it is a relatively small step to demand "Full Faith and Credit."

I live in interesting times.

An appeal from a friend.

I found the following in my inbox this morning. It is an appeal from a friend to support US catholic nuns against a an reprimand by the Vatican for spending too much time on humanitarian aid, and not enough on issues like contraception and outcasting gays.

The issues the nuns are being reprimanded for are close to my heart, as regular readers know. However, I am ambivalent, at best about any branch of the Catholic church (and most other religious organization.) I put this forward for your contemplation.

I put this forward for your contemplation.

The Vatican thinks US Catholic nuns (LCWR) spend too much time
on the poor and not enough time condemning the gays and taking birth control rights away. They therefore wants to stage a hostile takeover of nuns. I don't ever ask you all to donate but I think this is
incredibly important because the nuns represent the very few sane
voices left in the cultural war of the religious right vs others.
I've just donated ... and I still feel guilty because its not enough to express how I feel. I want the nuns to know that we care that they are standing with poor women and children, even when Vatican is threatening them. I want to donate so they have the emotional and material resources  to fight this hostile takeover and not be forced to condemn people and give an example of what its truly means to be spiritual.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-05-21/catholic-nuns-america-vatican/55117584/1

https://lcwr.org/

Or, if you rather just sign a petition:

http://www.change.org/petitions/support-the-sisters
Thanks for reading,

Perverse

Somedays, there's news I can't help myself from commenting on.

For instance: Given how grumpy I've been of late, I'd decided not to talk about North Carolina's Proposition 1 passing last night, extra banning gay marriage, but in addition possibly reducing domestic violence protection for people who are not yet married. Stupidity upon stupidity. There's nothing to say. So I didn't.

Until President Obama said this a bit ago on ABC.

I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

 Not perfect. I could ask for more. But I could always ask for more. However, this statement along with his refusal to defend DOMA, and getting rid of "Don't ask don't tell" shows promise.

My partner just asked me.

"Does this mean that same sex corporations in North Carolina can't marry for tax reason's either?"

I had to share. And then he dug up this about when public aproval for mixed race marriages passed 50% in this country. I weep in shame.

Thank you New York

On Sunday, New York state started performing gay marriages. New York is the most populous state of the union to have gay marriage, not just a Civil Union. Its very cool. I'm very excited. Here are some interviews from activists and couples from the day.

A minor point that caught my attention, listening to the news coverage: I really like the line being used at the end of marriage ceremonies by Mayor Bloomberg.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "And now for the moment that you have all been waiting for. Do you, John, solemnly declare that you take Jonathan to be your spouse? Do you promise to love, cherish and keep him for as long as you both shall live?"

John Feinblatt, groom: "I do."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: "By the powers vested in me by the state of New York, I pronounce you both married."

Read that again. "Pronounce you both married." The equality of that statement soothes my nerves. Nothing like starting out the state recognition of one's relationship symbolically on equal footing.