By Ann Rostow–
Wither Progressives?
I couldn’t help but notice two of my old friends, GLBT legal eagles Dale Carpenter and Kate Kendell, at odds on Facebook over the recent anti-trans comments about women’s sports from Gavin Newsom. I use that last adjective advisedly, because Newsom told right-wing podcaster Charlie Kirk that it was “deeply unfair” for transgender women to play on women’s sports teams.
Carpenter, who teaches constitutional law at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, praised the California governor for “opening a space for discussion,” which is a strange way to describe what sounds like flat-out opposition to trans athletes. Kendell, Chief of Staff of the California Endowment, called the podcast “a humiliating demonstration of unprincipled boot-licking by Newsom, who was unable to mount any cogent response to Kirk’s many bogus characterizations on everything from race to ‘cancel culture’ to trans issues.” (Tell us what you really think, Kate!) Carpenter then noted that a majority of Democrats, rightly or wrongly, think restricting trans athletes is “a matter of common sense.”
Newsom’s deliberate break with progressive Democrats comes a month or so after Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton told the press: “I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete. But as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” Moulton said that, afterwards, quite a few of his fellow Dems came up to him later and thanked him for his refreshing comments. In other words, thanks to Moulton, Newsom’s contrarian remarks required zero political chutzpah.
But look at what Moulton actually communicated. We all agree that no parent would want their little girl getting mowed down by a boy on the field. As for a “formerly male athlete,” the entire debate hinges on these ambiguous words. Are we talking about a pre-pubescent child who has identified as a little girl for years? Would Moulton or his colleagues really object to that sixth-grade transgirl playing kickball with his daughter? No. Would he object to a transgirl a year or so into hormone treatments playing on his daughter’s softball team? Again, no. By implication, the “formerly male athletes” Moulton objects to would be big strong guys who have not transitioned to any appropriate degree.
This is the straw man that opponents of transathletes like to attack and that doesn’t exist. Of course, we don’t pit males against females in a sporting arena. Nor do we allow a man to simply “announce” a transgender status and claim the civil right to try out for the women’s team. This stuff doesn’t happen. What has happened is that since people’s transitions are all different, we have historically tried to avoid a one-size-fits-all policy covering trans sports. So much for that effort.
Carpenter is right that we need an open space for discussion. We need that space for the other major transgender issues as well, because they are complex and massively misunderstood. Just as the burly male knocking the little girls off the field is the straw man for sports, the prospect of drastic genital surgery for transgender kids is inanely bandied about as a real danger that requires bans on all gender-based health care for transgender youth. There’s a faux horror story for every trans-related issue, from bearded rapists in the ladies room to effeminate soldiers unprepared to fight. Thanks to these simplistic images, America’s curiosity and sympathy for her transgender fellow citizens has shifted and is now hardening into hostility and disdain. How do we create that open space under these circumstances?
Smoothie Anyone?
So, it does look as if Newsom is thinking about a presidential run, doesn’t it? I can’t even bring myself to criticize his political posturing since, for all I know, the winning ticket in 2028 will have veered to the right from the days of Harris and Biden. Whatever the platform, I’d gladly vote for Newsom over JD Vance, but I must admit, it might be hard to overlook the fact that the man was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle for five years.
I don’t go browsing on Facebook very often, and I can’t recall why I went there this morning. Oh, yes! A friend replied to one of her friends, a stranger to me who was doing something totally irrelevant to my life. I clicked into this scenario via an email and was at once sucked into endless posts, each one interesting enough to stay on Facebook, but not interesting enough to mean anything, unless you count Dale and Kate bien sur. Think adorable dog runs to her owner after a two week vacation, followed by a Valentine’s Day dessert made in an egg carton with frozen pastry dough and a chocolate bar, followed by “cat’s reaction to new kitten didn’t go as planned!” It’s thirty minutes I’ll never have back.
Meanwhile, did you read that some Danish guy created an art installation that included three piglets who were supposed to starve to death as part of the project. Are you frigging kidding me? The guy was drawing attention to bad things about pig farming, of which there are myriad, including the fact that piglets die because there are more piglets than there are pig mother teats. Happily, animal rights people saved the piglets, but there’s something even more grotesque than cruel meat processing and that would be killing animals to make an artistic statement.
I know someone will point out that we wouldn’t be discussing pig farming were it not for the unconventional exhibition, which was indeed titled And Now You Care? But this guy, Marco Everistti, is nonetheless a real creep. “In 2000,” The New York Times reports, “Evaristti displayed ten goldfish in individual blenders in a Danish museum and allowed visitors to turn on the machines. Some did.” I’m especially appalled by this after reading recently that goldfish can live sixty years and become gigantic if dumped into a river or pond.
Okay. I was just looking for that goldfish story when I found a dozen other clips about the intelligence and long memories of Everistti’s blender-fodder. From LiveScience we learn that goldfish are “good problem-solvers and have been taught to escape nets and navigate mazes … . They can even remember how to repeat these tasks weeks, and even months, later.” Another article said goldfish owners swear their pets recognize them.
If this guy weren’t already in his sixties, I’d peg him as a future serial killer. Maybe he still has time. As for the art lovers who decided to operate the blenders, words fail me.
Rocky Mountain Whatever
I have some big news out of the Supreme Court, where at least four justices have decided to revisit what some of us thought was settled law, the extent to which a state can regulate counseling services. Can a state outlaw conversion therapy as a medical risk to fragile teenagers? Or are such regulations a violation of a counselor’s right to free speech?
The petition came from a Christian counselor out of Colorado, who claims her right to free speech is abridged by the state law against conversion therapy. Colorado won the case in lower court and again before the a 2–1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, but some on the High Court seem ready to switch sides on any and all court precedents involving our community.
Colorado, like other states with bans on conversion therapy, says the practice falls below a minimum standard of care and argues that the state has the right to police the behavior of counselors and other medical practitioners in accordance with legislative mandates. But the High Court decided to ignore the state’s position and review the question of free speech, as presented by the Christian counselor and her conservative lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom.
I’m not a lawyer, but it’s pretty obvious that a Court that seems on the verge of deciding that states can limit health care to transgender youth (in a case to be decided this spring), might not want to cede Colorado’s regulatory power just a few months later. But by turning the case into a free speech battle, the justices can come up with whatever bullpucky rationale they want and squeeze it into the First Amendment. Just as Lorie Smith’s web design service was deemed “artistic expression” a few years back, rather than a public business prohibited from discriminating under Colorado law, I’m guessing the SCOTUS conservatives will find that this counselor woman’s preachy antigay circus can’t be constrained without trespassing on her constitutional rights.
What is it with Colorado?
Lesbian Noir
I skipped over an article this morning that listed hundreds of innocuous words and expressions now liable to be edited out of federal websites and documents. It’s beyond bizarre and it’s the type of piece I can’t handle. (Fingers in ears. Cue: “la la la la la.”) I also found a report in The Advocate that says the Department of Defense flagged photos of the notorious bomber Enola Gay for removal, which I assume someone manually corrected. I was struck, not just by the absurdity (the Enola Gay was the plane that bombed Hiroshima), but by the image of people updating software to remove the word “gay” from Department materials. As far as I understand it, all references to “LGBTQ” have been shortened to “LGB,” so I guess some references still exist. There are probably directives to make the “LGBs” wear special buttons.
What else is new, you wonder? I just watched Flow, the winner of the Oscar and the Golden Globe for Best-Animated Feature. I had read a lot about it, but I still wasn’t going out of my way to watch it until I read that people’s cats were watching the movie, transfixed by the apocalyptic adventures of the feline hero. I saw one cat (yes, on Facebook again!), who was perched on a pedestal by the television rapt with concentration. Many other witnesses swore their pets watched the whole movie from beginning to end and couldn’t look away. Hey, I thought it was good. It was a little mesmerizing, and if I were a cat, I think it would rank high on my list of favorite films.
I’ve been meaning to write a thoughtful account of another High Court case that the San Francisco Bay Times legal staff has been following, to wit the straight woman who filed suit under Title VII’s ban on workplace discrimination claiming that she was not promoted due to her (yes, heterosexual) sexual orientation. Marlean Ames, who worked for a youth agency in Ohio, insisted that her promotion went to a lesbian, and she was demoted by a gay man, evidence of sexual orientation bias, which is not allowed under Title VII. Normally, claims of reverse discrimination require extra evidence, but the High Court will decide whether or not that will remain the case.
Well, that was a pretty thoughtful account actually, so I’ll check that off the list, shall I?
Finally, my gratitude goes to a loyal reader (thanks, JS) who noted that my reduced news consumption has allowed the story of a lesbian behaving badly to pass by under the radar. In late February, Riverside County Fire Captain Rebecca Marodi, 49, was stabbed outside her home outside of Escondido.
Hmmm. This is actually not one of our lovable madcap lesbian pranks, but a hot-blooded murder right out of Vera (which my wife is watching in the other room), except in Southern California instead of Newcastle. The killer was Rebecca’s wife, Yolanda Marodi, who was furious that Rebecca was planning on ending the relationship. According to SF Gate, the women were captured by their Ring camera that recorded Rebecca yelling: “Yolanda! Please … I don’t want to die,” and Yolanda replying: “You should have thought about that before.”
Rebecca seems to have blood on her back as she goes inside. About ten minutes later, Yolanda comes back out, gets into her car, and drives off (to Mexico). Meanwhile, Rebecca’s mother comes over and calls 911, but Rebecca dies. Oh, and here’s the kicker. Yolanda spent 13 years in prison for stabbing her husband to death in 2000!
She is still at large, so stay tuned.
arostow@aol.com
GLBT Fortnight in Review
Published on March 13, 2025
Recent Comments