Prince William County Delays Protection of LGBTQ Students

On Wednesday, the Prince William County (VA) school board voted to postpone a decision on adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the school district's non-discrimination policy until the second meeting in June 2017.

The motion to postpone the vote on the policy change was put forward by Diane Raulston, on the basis that she felt they ought to wait until either the Virginia Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court makes a decision on a lawsuit against the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to Fairfax County's non-discrimination policy.

She apparently thought this would happen by October, but then was advised that it probably would not happen any time soon. Since by procedure she was required to specify a date to reconsider the motion (or postpone it indefinitely) she chose June of next year. Five board members voted in favor of postponing a decision on the policy. Only Chairman Ryan Sawyers voted against the delay, and Loree Williams abstained.

This seems nonsensical on the surface, given that the policy they were to discuss and vote on had already been amended to state that the bathroom and locker room issue, the most contentious part, would await guidance from the courts. Almost all of the citizens who spoke in opposition to the policy on Wednesday night focused on bathrooms and locker rooms.

But if the policy already sidestepped this issue, why postpone the whole thing?

Those who oppose the policy change accuse Chairman Sawyers political motivations for bringing forth this policy, but in fact it's the five board members who voted to delay it that are playing politics.

They saw how vocal the opposition was, and did not want to face the political fallout that would come from supporting even a watered-down version of the LGBTQ policy. Instead, they used the convenient excuse of "waiting for the courts" to avoid even discussing the merits of the policy.

If there's a silver lining, it's that at least they didn't dismiss the policy change outright. At least they're willing to consider it again. And my belief is that most of the board has the sense that protecting LGBTQ students is the right thing to do.

Just that aside from Chairman Sawyers and member Loree Williams, they don't feel sure enough on transgender issues to stand up to a raving crowd of misinformed conservatives.

The bad news is that now LGBTQ students will have to endure another whole school year without explicit protection from bullying, and LGBTQ employees will spend another year in fear for their jobs. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the climate got worse for LGBTQ people in PWC schools, thanks to the postpone of this policy, which seems to say, "No, we don't care, go ahead and harass LGBTQ people."

***

Of the 100+ Prince William County citizens who spoke before the board over the course of six hours on Wednesday night, almost all of them were opposed to the policy, and almost all of them in turn fixated on the issue of bathrooms and locker rooms, in a way that revealed gross misunderstanding and lack of respect for trans people.

Misgendering of trans people. The policy would not allow boys or men to go into girls' bathrooms and locker rooms. It would guarantee the right of transgender girls to use these facilities along with other girls. Conservatives reject the gender identities of trans people, seeing no difference between a trans girl and a cisgender boy. But the American Psychological Association has recognized that transgenderedness is a real thing, and that trans girls ought to be seen as girls and trans boys as boys.

People who have never met an actual trans person (that they know of) are probably not aware of the transformation that happens when someone transitions. Even without hormones or other medical interventions, the change in appearance and behavior can be dramatic. This is not to say that trans people do or have to conform to male and female gender norms - but a binary trans person will likely look and act much like any other person of their gender. A trans woman is not just a "man in a dress," but a woman through and through.

Fear-mongering about sexual assault. The parent of a trans high-schooler and non-binary middle-schooler called it when she said that this was demonstration of the pervasiveness of rape culture. Apparently, it's taken for granted that boys are going to attempt to go into girls' facilities to assault girls and that schools are not going to be able to prevent such assaults. Rather than placing the responsibility - or even just the expectation - on boys to behave themselves, another class of citizens has to be disenfranchised for the "protection" of girls.

There is no connection between transgender bathroom use and the incidence of sexual assaults and harassment in bathrooms. In general, trans people just want to go in, use the bathroom, and get out, often even more discreetly then cis people, due to understandable nervousness about using bathrooms in a transphobic world. And people who want to sneak into bathrooms to assault other people will do so regardless of transgender bathroom policies, and it will still be against the law, just like assault under any other circumstances. Transgender bathroom policies do not protect these kinds of people. They protect ordinary trans folk who are just trying to pee, in privacy.

Let's be clear though. While there are probably some people who are truly frightened of cis men being allowed into women's bathrooms under trans bathroom protections, for conservative politicians this is just a front. They are less concerned about the problem of sexual assault than about demonizing trans women. Just ask them when they've last supported Take Back the Night or a similar movement and you'll see how much they actually care about sexual assault.

Passing personal belief off as science. News flash: science no longer holds that chromosomes or genitalia equal gender identity, or even that any of these are limited to the binary of male and female. There are more chromosomal combinations than just XX and XY, and ambiguous genitals also happen. Gender identity, meanwhile, is acknowledged as an internal sense of being male, female or something else, which may or may not correlate with one's physical body or what was assigned at birth. Throughout the medical establishment, the consensus is becoming stronger and stronger that transgender and non-binary identities are valid and that the ideal "treatment" for individuals with these identities is affirmation and support.

Obsession with strangers' genitalia. Usually we call that perversion, but for some reason, when we're talking about transgender people, even minors, it's ok? One of the speakers said that he would be uncomfortable using a restroom with someone with female genitalia. As a trans guy, I'm uncomfortable that he's thinking about my genitals! How is that ok? If he were to openly talk about the genitals of a cisgender man or woman, that would be labeled sexual harassment. But because trans people are seen as less than human, people think it's ok to talk about our genitals in public. No! It's not ok, and if you're doing it, you're being pervy and committing harassment. You wouldn't want your private parts to be the topic of conversation around the water cooler, so don't do it to us, either.

Probably one of the most frustrating things about that night was hearing lie after lie, and not being able to say anything to contradict them, and seeing so few people take the stand to defend LGBTQ people and especially transgender people. Where were they? Where were the people who elected these Democratic board members in the first place? Where were the GSA's? It is understandable that students might be afraid to come out so publicly, and LGBTQ employees would be afraid of losing their jobs - the Chairman mentioned receiving emails saying as much. But where were the parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, guidance counselors, and others who might speak for those afraid to speak for themselves?

***

Possibly the most worthwhile part of the night, meanwhile, was listening to and participating in a conversation between my girlfriend (an out transgender woman and a survivor of Catholic school) and a less-judgmental pastor. Their conversation partly inspired some thoughts on sin which I jotted down earlier.

This particular pastor held that being homosexual or transgender is a sin and that the Bible has the answers to all life's questions and problems, but he also seemed more open-minded and accepting than some of the other conservative faith leaders. Almost a "live and let live" sort of person.

He did try to liken being trans or gay to being unfaithful to one's spouse - one might have urges to do certain things, but that doesn't mean it's right to act on them. I wasn't part of the conversation at that point so I didn't say anything, but I what I wanted to say was:

The difference is that, when you're unfaithful, you're hurting someone. Whether you're monogamous or poly, being unfaithful means you're breaking your partner's trust, doing something they wouldn't want to happen and probably lying to them to boot. Being gay or trans, meanwhile, doesn't in and of itself hurt anyone else. And it can be very liberating to be open to it, and can allow someone who was previously repressed to find sincere, wholehearted love, In short, it brings good things to yourself and your potential partner. Arguing that I'm hurting myself with my transgender and queer "lifestyle" by jeopardizing my eternal soul is invalid, since it presumes I believe in the same standards for judging souls that you do. (I don't.) And trying to force your beliefs on me - well, that's generally not ok.

Later on, the pastor asked me what I believed in, and since he was being so friendly and open, I told him. (I hope to write up a post about my spiritual beliefs pretty soon here. It will start with, "I have a sort of anthropological view on religion...") I have to give him credit for staying cool while I told him that I thought all religions, including Christianity, are "made up" and "mythology." I'm not used to talking to Christians, and am generally frank to the point of tactlessness anyway. However, he did not seem fazed, and gave me his business card and invited me and my gf to come to a service at his church.

I don't know about sitting through all that, but the gf is interested in doing outreach at churches to spread some much-needed awareness about trans people.

***

On Thursday morning, I had a an anxiety attack.

I was in the middle of a dream related to the school board meeting when my alarm must have gone off - although I don't remember that - and I floundered for a while between dreaming and waking, confused, hurt and afraid. Matters probably weren't helped by the less than three hours of sleep I'd had and definitely weren't helped by the fact that my girlfriend, my main source of emotional support, was going out of town for the weekend.

I began to be afraid of my own fear and spiraled down into a near paralysis of helpless despair.

Nothing could really help. Staying in bed all day wouldn't have helped - I'd just have become more paralyzed.

Eventually, somehow, I managed to drag myself out of bed, get dressed and go off to work. Doing things made the anxiety recede until I was able to tiptoe around it, functioning almost normally.

While processing things with my therapist today, she pointed out that meeting that much transphobia - six hours' worth - so suddenly must have been a traumatic experience. It made sense to be upset.

But also, I recalled one of the teenage girls who spoke against the non-discrimination policy saying that she was sick with fear of encountering a "boy" in the bathroom or locker room.

I have some idea how she feels, since it sounds similar to the way I felt about living in a very often transphobic world on Thursday morning.

It made me realize that although people on "the other side" are misinformed, they are also human and are suffering from their ignorance, sometimes just as much as I am.

And it's not like I know everything, either. The conversation with the pastor taught me things about the Christian viewpoint that I had never realized before.

We have to find a way to come together, to diminish suffering and ignorance, and make things better for all of us.

***

Edit, 9/24/16: I misremembered which Board member made the motion to postpone the vote on the policy. It was Diane Raulston, not Lillie Jessie.

Thoughts on Sin

I will write another piece on the Prince William County School Board meeting later, but for now, here are some thoughts on sin that occurred to me while listening to my girlfriend (an out trans woman and a survivor of Catholic school and Catholic upbringing) debating sin and other religious topics with two pastors - one reasonable and one deluded.

I'm not a theologian. Someone probably said stuff like I'm about to say better and prettier and more theologically correct before. I'm just jotting down my own reflections on these topics as I try to understand my own spirituality, and to give you a window into it and maybe something to think about too.

1. Sin is limiting. The concept of sin tells you all these things you can't do. Sometimes I agree with these pronouncements, like "Thou shalt not kill." But other times, calling something a sin just because "the Bible says so" prevents you from getting the most out of life. There is a Richard Dawkins quote relating to this which I tried to find (I heard it through the excellent, Watership Down-themed post-hardcore band Fall of Efrafa, so I don't have it in writing). He says that this life isn't something to be endured for the sake of the hereafter, but that we should live in the here and now. We should stop tormenting ourselves about sin, and simply try to live better.

2. Sin is relative. Different cultures say this is a sin or that is a sin, but compassion and kindness are universal. We all know what it is to be treated nicely, and we all deserve that.

I'm also thinking of a Thich Nhat Hanh quote which I have nowhere near at hand, about how we could have heaven on earth if we would just love one another. Certainly, there are things that could be said to be undeniably wrong, such as intentionally hurting another being. But this is defined by the standard of what is right, not by an arbitrary list in a book. A true sin, to me, is a failure to exercise love, compassion, benevolence and kindness. These are things that are universally recognized as good. So it's time we pursued those, wholly and unabashedly, instead of creating more suffering by codifying anything we don't disagree with as "sin."

An Open Letter to the Prince William County School Board About Updating the Non-Discrimination Policy

I will not be speaking at the Prince William County (VA) school board meeting next week where they will vote on adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the school district's non-discrimination policy, because I am not a resident of Prince William County. However, I have a lot of things to say to everyone concerned in the matter, so I'm writing some open letters. Think of it kind of like an amicus brief. I was going to do them all in one post, but they started to get long and I started to run out of time, so here is the first, most important one:

To the Prince William County School Board,

Next week, you have the chance to decide whether to protect some of your most vulnerable students, or to give a carte blanche to those who would harass LGBTQ students, deny rights to transgender students, and jeopardize not just the education but the lives of these students.

If you oppose the policy change, ask yourself if you really believe a class of students should be excluded from fair treatment, or if you're just uncomfortable with those who are different from you, or with the ire of those who hate others just for being different.

Separate is never equal. Unless a transgender student specifically requests it for their comfort or safety, making a trans student use a separate bathroom due to superficial characteristics is inherently unfair. I say superficial because no matter our physical configuration, we are all human and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Is it respectful to turn a blind eye to the bullying faced by LGBTQ students? Is it dignified for a transgender student to to stigmatized by being excluded from bathrooms and locker rooms?

I hope you have listened, and will listen, those who are directly concerned in this policy change - the LGBTQ students and staff of Prince William County. They are the ones who will be most significantly benefited, or mostly deeply harmed, by whether or not you choose to approve this change. For LGBTQ students facing harassment and the resulting isolation, depression and anxiety, this could be a life or death issue.

Some of you had questions about how the policy would be implemented. But these questions are just dancing around the heart of the matter - that some people are uncomfortable with trans people in bathrooms and locker rooms, and are coming up with endless, but vaguely phrased, questions to create delay and to cover up and avoid facing their discomfort with trans people. The actual implementation could be very simple. The sexual orientation part could be handled with a memo informing everyone, "Harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation is not to be tolerated." The social transition of transgender students could be handled with IEP's, allowing each trans student to realize their social transition in their own way, and creating no extra work for the Board. There is no need to waste time discussing this, when the real issue is: some people don't want trans people in bathrooms and locker rooms, no matter how you implement it.

I implore you examine the reasons why. Do you really believe trans students are a danger to other students, or that they just want to use the bathroom and change for gym the same as anyone else? Do you really believe trans people, who are incredibly anxious about their body parts, would willingly let anyone see them? Or that trans students nervous about being accepted would do anything untoward in the bathroom or locker room? Or that it is acceptable for other students and parents to pry into a trans student's privacy, wanting to know about their genitals or how they go to the bathroom? This is what the debate is about. "How" is just an excuse to avoid facing the question of "why." Because all the answer boils down to is, "They're different." Trans people's gender identities are different from the "norm." And that is no valid reason to exclude them. That is the very definition of discrimination.

The bathroom debate also calls into question the validity of transgender identities. This is not something new or made up. Trans people have been around as long as people have - prehistoric remains have been found that were "physically" one gender but buried in a fashion usually reserved for the other binary gender, indicating that even in prehistoric times, there seem to have been transgender people. Gender variance occurs across a wide range of cultures and throughout history. Physical sex characteristics even vary, since about 1% of the population is born intersex. Moreover, gender dysphoria is recognized by the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association with the recommended treatment being supporting trans people in living as the gender they identify with. Not allowing transgender students and staff to use the restrooms consistent with their gender identities would be ignoring their medical needs.

You could debate the implementation of the policy forever - and that is what anti-transgender activists want you to do, not just to avoid implementing protection for LGBTQ, and especially the T, students and staff, but also to disguise their real motive - hate and discrimination for no other reasons than misunderstanding, fear and ignorance of those who are different, an inflated imaginary threat that bears no resemblance to real medical basis, psychological struggles and fundamental humanity of trans people. Do not be distracted by their inflammatory falsehoods and needless delaying tactics from the real question: what is fair? For some students to be bullied and denied access to school facilities, just because of the sense of self they were born with? Is that really something you want to stand for? Or would you rather stand for respectful, equitable treatment of all students?

Prince William County School Board Split Over LGBTQ Non-Discrimination Protection

I just got back from the Prince William County (VA) school board meeting where the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity to the school district's non-discrimination policy was discussed, and I can't sleep because my brain is whirring up a storm over all the stuff that was said tonight.

A lot of it was good. There were a lot of people speaking in support of the addition to the non-discrimination policy. But I worry it wasn't enough to counteract the inaccurate, illogical and unscientific remarks of the opposition, and the waffling of some school board members.

Three of the school board members insisted they needed more time to discuss how exactly the policy would be implemented. What is there to discuss? You're adding five words to the non-discrimination policy. Once that's done, you can hammer out exactly how you're going to implement it. Even that is not so difficult - many schools, districts and organizations have already done it, and you could just leave the details up to the individual school.

Obsessing about how the policy will be implemented is really just an excuse to do nothing. What it really means is, I'm not ready to accept transgender students, so I need more time to "think about it." It might be to the school board member's credit, if they are actually willing to think about it and wrap their heads around transgender issues. But equally likely, it's just an excuse. Because it's not politic to say, "I oppose this because I'm uncomfortable with trans people," so instead they say, "We need more time to think about it." Doing nothing in the meantime, and possibly never. As my girlfriend (who, being a PWC resident, spoke at the meeting) pointed out, they already had seven months to think about it, research and come up with ways to implement it.

Two of the school board members also said there was no need for such a policy. Probably not coincidentally, they were both white men. It's easy to say nothing's wrong when you're privileged. Also probably not coincidentally, the three black women on the school board all said some variation of "Discrimination against any person is wrong." The school board chairman also made a very astute observation: "The majority does not need to be protected, because it will always protect itself."

Those who say there's no need for codification of sexual orientation and gender identity in the non-discrimination policy blatantly ignored the testimony of the alumni, parents and staff who described bullying of LGBTQ students in PWC schools. They ignored the testimony of the counselor who talked about how LGBTQ students suffer levels of anxiety that interfere with their studies. And they are ignoring the high suicide rates of LGBTQ youth, which stem directly from hostile environments.

"Even if it saves one student," one of the school board members said, "it's the right thing to do."

Then there was the misinformation spouted by the citizens who spoke in opposition to the policy change. They routinely used incorrect terminology, such as referring to a transgender boy as a "transitioning female." It's not just offensive but actually confusing. For a moment or two I thought he was talking about a trans girl, but then it became apparent he meant a trans boy. Whaaa? Just use the standard terminology so everyone knows what you mean. Oh, and here's a protip for policymakers: If someone doesn't even know the proper terminology for talking about trans people, chances are they also don't know much about the actual lives and experiences of trans people. You may want to keep that in mind.

And then there were the references to "choosing a gender identity" and "gender confusion." Yeah...both the American Medical Association (AMA)* and American Psychological Association (APA)** recognize gender dysphoria as an actual thing and assert that the most effective treatment is supporting trans people to live as the gender they identify with. But apparently we should just disregard what the medical professionals say, because what do they know?

*Since AMA's policy on transgender healthcare was passed in 2008, this fact sheet uses outdated terminology - "gender identity disorder" has by now been replaced by "gender dysphoria."
**TLDR? See pg. 15, "Psychologists recognize that TGNC people are more likely to experience positive life outcomes when they receive social support or trans-affirmative care."

The thing is, for trans people, trying to "just deal with it," to live as the gender they were assigned at birth, generally leads to depression and from there often to suicide attempts (41% of the population). That is the essence of gender dysphoria - a crippling inability to "deal with" living as the gender you were assigned, and the choice of either living as your authentic self or facing a likely downward spiral. For me, it means I'd rather constrict my body with a binder than let my chest show and rather stick a needle in my thigh once a week than go back to having curves.

And then the privacy issue. As a trans person who has used pool and gym locker rooms, I can tell you that I am even more interested - desperately so - in not letting anyone see those parts that don't align with my identity, than anyone else. I'd wager just about every other trans person feels similarly. We don't even want to see those parts of ourselves; no way are we letting other people see.

I realize it can be hard to wrap your head around the idea that a girl or a boy may have different parts than what you're used to. I know because I've been there. I have to admit, when I first dated a trans woman, in the beginning I had to get over a certain distaste for certain parts that didn't sync in my mind with the idea that she was a woman. Even though in my head I theoretically supported trans identities, there was a visceral reaction I had to get over to really, fully accept trans bodies. And gradually, I did. The human mind can get used to just about anything, and the concept that gender identity transcends bodies is one that we're all going to have to learn eventually.

And for most people, it doesn't even have to be that graphic. Step back and think a moment. Is it really appropriate to be thinking about the genitals of strangers? Do you want other people thinking about you that way? No? Well then, maybe just leave the genitals of trans people alone. It's actually not anyone else's business.

So if we care so much about privacy, what about the privacy of transgender students? Why exactly is it the business of strangers what their genitalia are? That is between the student, their parents and their doctor. All anyone else needs to know is, this student identifies as male, or female, or non-binary. It may be helpful for the school to know the student is trans, in order to provide support, but what their genitalia are? That's none of the school's business, and certainly not the business of other parents. I mean, would you want other parents talking about your kid's genitals? Then why treat trans kids any different? They're people too and deserve respect like everyone else.

One of the most disturbing things said by the opposition was brought up by a civil rights lawyer (who should know better), who mentioned some of his clients being young girls who had been sexually assaulted and would be traumatized at having a transgender girl (not his actual word choice - it was something much less respectful) sharing a locker room with them. Firstly, it's highly unlikely that anyone else would be seeing a trans person's parts in the locker room, as I explained above. And secondly, the usual policy is to have a different facility for the persons who have an issue with the trans person. I realize this might seem unfair to the survivors of assault, though. It's a delicate balancing act, balancing the rights and needs of trans people and survivors of assault, but there's no reason it couldn't be resolved without denying either of them. Perhaps they could be scheduled in different gym classes at different times of day. Perhaps they could civilly agree to work on their differences. Sexual assault survivors are not an excuse or pawn for discriminating against trans people.

It's not as if this can't all be worked out. Just ask the schools and athletic teams that have already done it. Outside the meeting, I talked a parent of a transgender child who has an IEP (Individualized Education Program, a document that describes the services schools will provide to a particular student with special needs). An IEP could spell out how all of this is handled, from bathrooms and locker rooms to overnight trips. But the opposition isn't legitimately interested in solving the problem; they just want to use bathrooms and locker rooms as a scare tactic. There were a couple parents at the meeting who I think were honestly just saying, I want to know how the gender identity policy will be carried out. The school board could show them existing IEP's for transgender students. Every transgender student is different, anyway, and will have different comfort levels and needs when it comes to integrating into a gendered environment, so it makes sense to come up with individualized plans.

Plus, the opposition seems not to understand that harassment, assault and bullying can happen between cisgender students of the same gender, too. It is not as if transgender students are inherently dangerous or add something to the mix that didn't already exist. All students deserve to be protected from these kinds of incidents, and schools should have policies and procedures to make sure of that, whether the students in an environment are all the same gender or not, whether they are cis or trans.

The thing is, when it comes to bathrooms and locker rooms, trans people are much more likely to be the victims of assault. Their right to use these facilities without being attacked are in much more dire need of protection than cis people's desire to not feel uncomfortable. LGBTQ students in general meet with high rates of harassment, and the consequences are tragic. There is no time to lose, and no matter how long you wait, there will always be people who are uncomfortable with change. But delaying protection of LGBTQ students will only lead to more bullying and more lives lost.

Be a Pro-Feminist? No, Thanks.

Immediately after reading this comic on Everyday Feminism, I didn't think I'd have such a strong opinion on it (I thought this was just going to be a Facebook post at first) but the more I wrote, the more I thought about it, the more it made no sense that only women can and should do the work of gender equality, that is, be feminists. Making a distinction between feminists and "pro-feminists" makes it sound like some of us get to just sit back and watch while only women can be in the movement doing the actual work. And then if you take a look at where to draw the line between feminists and pro-feminists from a non-binary perspective, it just gets messy.

The argument that men (or non-women) can't be feminists because they're allies and not part of the community is flawed because the community of women is different from the community of feminists. Being a woman does not always equate with being a feminist; it's a mode of thinking, not an innately arising state such as being gay or trans. Being a mode of thinking, and acting, which is not dependent on biology, it follows that anyone should be able to pick it up. (Hey, I just realized, is this another form of biological determinism?!)

Also, while feminism is certainly led by women, and a large part of it is about empowering women, in recent years the rhetoric of gender equality has taken a broader turn. "Feminism" now includes not only empowerment of women, but breaking down harmful stereotypes of masculinity and making space for non-binary people. I'm not necessarily saying that the term "feminism" is outdated, because women's issues do need and deserve a heavy focus, but the topic of gender equality has become more nuanced. There's work for everyone to do, and people who are not women should be doing it too. They can't (most of the time) be women, but they can be someone who supports women/gender equality, i.e. a feminist.

Furthermore, I don't necessarily think it's the case that allies can't be part of the community. When the gf and I were at Freddie's Beach Bar (a gay bar in the DC area) the weekend before last, the sense of community was palpable, even if there were plenty of straight people there. Yes, sometimes LGBTQIA+ people need a space without straight, cis people, but sometimes they can also be part of the community. It depends on the group / space, and this need can (and should be) made clear upfront. For instance, a transmasculine group I belong to usually welcomes SOFFAs (significant others, friends, family and allies), but for their "top surgery show and tell," they limit the meeting to people who have had or are interested in top surgery. This no doubt helps the people showing their post-surgery chests feel more comfortable.

I would not want to intrude on a feminist space that was women-only. (As an aside, it goes without saying that a women-only space should include transfeminine people as well, and that it should be up to the individual to decide if they're feminine enough to attend.) Since I'm not a woman, I would feel wildly uncomfortable in such a space. But I would happily participate in a feminist space that was open to everyone. As an AFAB, non-binary person, there are things I can contribute to and gain from the feminist movement. There are things that cis men can contribute and gain too. Calling us "pro-feminist" puts us at a distance, like all we have to do is stand on the sidelines and cheer, when in fact the feminist movement needs all of us to actively participate.

At the end of the day, "feminist" and "pro-feminist" are just words, and actions speak louder. Just as there are bad "male feminists," there can also be good "pro-feminists" who are very active in helping the feminist cause. The social justice community loves to argue about labels, energy which could be better spent tackling injustices. Still, if I met a feminist who said that feminism is just for women, I would have to ask her if she's throwing non-binary people under the bus, if we're somehow not included in her vision of gender equality. Gender equality is for everybody. "Feminism" just happens to be the name of strongest, most well-known movement that's fighting for it. If someone's feminism doesn't include me, then I don't want any part of it either.

The upshot is, if I met someone who insisted that men be "pro-feminists" instead of feminists, I'd want to have a thorough talk with that person to see just who else is not included in her vision of feminism and femininity. Trans women? Non-binary people? I'm not saying this is a code word for trans exclusion, but it does seem to signal a lack of awareness about the spectrum of gender, to be trying to draw a line through something that's continuous and fluid. Insisting on a dichotomy between men and women is what got this whole inequality thing started in the first place, and we can only eradicate it by working together, by embracing the breadth of gender and supporting everyone's right to be themselves and be loved, happy and successful no matter what their biology, and not by making the movement an exclusive club.

Basically, if someone wants to have a group or space that's only for women feminists, then that's fine. Sometimes I want to just be with other non-binary people to talk about our non-binary issues. But if someone's vision of the whole movement is "by women, for women," then why I should even be bothered to support it? It's not just that there seems to be nothing in it for me, but that even my support and participation are unwelcome. Meanwhile, if feminism does advocate for equality for all genders and call on the active participation of all genders as well, then why not allow us all to be part of the movement, in name as well as in action?

LGBTQ Equity and Safety Forum

I didn't really know what to expect as I walked into the Seneca Valley High School cafeteria on Saturday afternoon. We were there for a "Community Forum to Discuss LGBTQ Equity and Safety" organized by PFLAG, although the name of the event didn't really stick in my head before or after. It was actually sort of by coincidence that I heard about it at all -- my girlfriend heard about it through work and asked if I wanted to go.

It was less crowded and noisy than I expected - there was a small group of people, probably less than 50, seated on rows of chairs facing a speaker. In the audience I recognized Montgomery County Police Officer Rose Borisow, whom my girlfriend had profiled for her paintings of fallen police officers and military service members. A little later several DC police officers arrived as well, including Sgt. Jessica Hawkins, an out trans woman and head of the Metropolitan Police Department's Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit (I only found out who she was after the event, though).

We missed the introduction, but arrived just in time for the panel. The panelists were Michelle McCleod, an LGBTQ activist who runs Honorary Nieces and Nephews, a nonprofit that provides educational assistance to homeless and foster care queer youth; Karen Holmes, a PFLAG Board Member; Miller Hoffman, Pastor of Open Door Metropolitan Community Church; and Gerri Carpenter, an educator and parent of a transgender son. The panel was moderated by John Bartkowiak of PFLAG Germantown.

The panel discussed topics such as safe spaces and microaggressions, led by questions asked by John. Although the forum was intended to "start a conversation about how we can move forward in Germantown" (Bianca Palmisano, PFLAG Board Member), the discussion actually seemed more about the issues that LGBTQ people meet with in general. (There was one comment about how things are very different here vs. in rural areas.)

Thinking about it later, I realized that this was possibly due to the questions that were asked, which were very general. If the forum was supposed to be focused on improving things in Germantown and/or Montgomery County, they maybe ought to have asked more specific questions, such as:

• Do you feel safe (or feel that your LGBTQ friends and family are safe) in Montgomery County, and why or why not?
• What are the biggest barriers LGBTQ people in MoCo still face? 
• What areas or communities in MoCo are less safe and what can be done about it? 

I was also surprised that the murder of Zella Ziona last October was not mentioned at all (unless that happened in the introduction I missed) seeing as that was a clear sign we do have transphobia in Montgomery County, and there could have been more targeted discussion on how to work with youth to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again. Later on there were some general comments about how to build understanding, but nothing specific about that incident or specific actions to prevent more hate crimes. Unfortunately, since I process information pretty slowly, especially auditory information, I didn't think to ask these things during the forum, but only thought of them later.

Trans issues came up a lot during the panel, surprisingly, considering the T used to be considered the odd cousin to the rest of the acronym. Or perhaps it's not so surprising, considering the attention trans issues have been getting recently, and also that three out of the four panelists were either trans or non-binary or had immediate family who are. Actually, I was gratified and relieved that the panel included a genderqueer person who could speak for people like me.

Things actually got a little exciting when the genderqueer panelist took on the concept of "passing." Earlier, one of the other panelists had commented on how she encouraged her trans women friends not to dress "provocatively" and to try to be as "normal" as possible, to blend in. Toward the end, the other panelist argued against this, saying that the expectation of "passing" or being "normal" does damage to the trans and genderqueer community, since some people can't or don't want to "pass." As an example, that panelist talked about sometimes considering starting testosterone in order to not be misgendered as often, but not wanting to give up a body that's comfortable just to fit society's expectations. Readers of my blog will already have guessed that I'm in agreement with this panelist -- I'm not a fan of "passing"; I think that all gender expressions and identities should be respected, regardless of whether they fit the existing norms of "male" and "female." Again, I was quite glad there was someone on the panel who could express this viewpoint.

The first panelist's view seemed to reflect a more old-fashioned view of transition, from a time when the only option for trans people was to transition all the way to the other binary gender, and they had to become invisible, "blend in" with the "normal" men and women in order to survive. As little as ten years ago it would have been much harder or even impossible to be open about being trans or non-binary like my girlfriend and I are now, and there are surely plenty of places where it's still impossible. The panelist who expressed this view is herself stealth in many contexts, which is why I'm avoiding using names.

After a snack of pizza and cookies (thanks to donations from &Pizza and Wegman's, yay!) we went to break-out small group discussions. My girlfriend and I headed to the "Trans Awareness" group, since it seemed like the place where we'd have the most to contribute. There were a lot of cis parents of trans kids in the group, with my gf and I and one of the panelists being the only trans people in the group.

At the very beginning, we went around the room introducing ourselves, including saying our gender identities and preferred pronouns, which was something I felt on the fence about. On the one hand, I felt put on the spot, pressured to label myself when I've spent rambling blog posts on the topic without arriving at a clear answer; yet on the other hand, I felt gratified that I would be able to provide visibility for non-binary identities, since I was forced to describe mine in a forum where I'd probably not otherwise have spoken at all. In the end I felt that that contribution outweighed the unpleasantness of being put on the spot -- although only slightly.

Being that there were so many parents of trans children (who ranged in age from 5 to 45) in the group, a lot of the discussion focused on parental acceptance. One mother whose teen had just come out as trans confessed to struggling with accepting her child, wanting to, but not knowing how. The mother of the transgender panelist was actually present, and talked about losing a friend over her daughter's transition. Another woman told the incredibly moving story of figuring out that her young child was transgender, bringing tears to many people's eyes (my testosterone-dried tear ducts not excepted) when she finished by saying that she cried for a week when she figured it out, not because her daughter was trans, but because if she had known sooner her daughter could have been happy for the first four years of her life.

After the small group sessions, we came back together to share what was discussed, and then Bianca Palmisano made some closing remarks. Surveys were passed out, and I noticed that several of the questions asked whether the forum had improved "public awareness" of LGBTQ issues. Well, seeing as it was attended by less than 50 people most of whom seemed to be either queer or trans themselves or to be parents of queer or trans people, I'm not so sure it did. In my small group, what I did see happen was parents who needed support connecting with other parents, and getting to hear the perspectives of other trans people besides their children. So it was beneficial at the individual level for a few people, but I don't know how much it did for the public or the community.

Some of the other breakout sessions seemed to do more on that front. There was a group on policing, which talked about the efforts of the police to address the issues of the LGBTQ community. Another of the groups, I can't remember which one, had talked about resources available to schools to support their LGBTQ students. And during the discussion at the end, school assemblies were mentioned a couple times as a way to bring more information on LGBTQ topics to the student body as a whole.

I am very glad that this forum happened and that I went to it. Still, I feel like it only just the broached the topic it was intended to cover, LGBTQ safety and equity in this particular community. There wasn't much discussion of the specifics of Germantown or Montgomery County, or any particular plans made to try to change things here. The conversation that Bianca alluded to was really only just started by this forum. On the survey, to the question of whether I would attend if another forum were held, I answered, "Yes definitely!" and I definitely hope there will be another one, since we still have a lot more to talk about.

Calling In Phil Anselmo

This is kind of old hat by now, but I wanted to get this post up anyway because it's important. As a blogger who writes about social justice and the metal scene, I don't think I ought to be silent on this, even if I am late to the party. (Or the slaughter, as it may be.)

Anyway, in case you don't listen to metal, or pay even less attention to news than I do, about a month ago Phil Anselmo, former lead vocalist of Pantera, made several racist gestures and comments while performing at Dimebash (the annual event in honor of deceased Pantera guitarist "Dimebag" Darrell Abbott). A fan caught him on video performing a "Sieg Heil" salute and shouting "White power," and he apparently made a comment using the N-word backstage to Robb Flynn of Machine Head. Robb later posted a rambling rant against Phil and racism in metal in general.

While Robb Flynn wasn't the only one in the metal scene taking Phil to task for his racist remarks, I know there's also a portion of the scene going "Who cares, extreme music is supposed to offend," or, "Yeah, that might be racist, but I just like the music, I don't care about the politics." Seeing as that's what so many people say about NSBM (nationalist socialist black metal), misogyny in the metal scene, etc. Because sometimes people with shitty views do make music that sounds really good, and when that bigoted person is on the other side of the world and you're listening to their music on Youtube, it's easy to feel like it doesn't matter.

I've been there. I used to like the music of this one band, probably the most notorious NSBM band, although I didn't know it at the time. When I found out about the neo-Nazi activities of the person behind the band, it took a long time for me to sort out how I felt about it and what to do. A similar thing, but even more intense, happened a while back when I found out that a science fiction and fantasy writer who was one of my faves when I was a teen was giving part of his book profits to anti-LGBT organizations. It took years for me to figure out how I felt about it, but eventually I decided I would never read any of his books again, nor even say his name. It was tough at first, because I had been so moved and inspired by his books, and at first I regretted not being able to continue reading or even recommending his work. But at the same time, I didn't want to give one iota of support, whether in terms of money or publicity, to those sort of views.

Same thing for that one NSBM band, or any other one I might come across, no matter how awesome the music. I decided that I can't separate any act from its social or political impact, and I can't stomach doing anything that would contribute even tangentially to hate or supporting any person who expresses hate in any way.

When I thought of it that way, it helped me to let go of the books I wanted to read and the music I wanted to listen to. I mean, what's more important, being able to enjoy this one band's music, when there are also zillions of other bands out there I could listen to, or the lives of people who will be negatively impacted by the racist and neo-Nazi views and actions the band is encouraging? (Some credit for the phrasing of this thought goes to Metal Chris of DC Heavy Metal, who made the point "there are so many other bands to listen to" in a Facebook discussion about the Phil incident.) Certainly it isn't easy giving up a favorite band, or author, but then again doing the right thing often isn't easy.

But my conscience does rest a lot easier knowing I did the right thing.

So does this mean I will never listen to Pantera again? Well, this story actually has a slightly different ending. For one thing, Pantera was not all Phil, and Rita Haney, Dimebag Darrell's girlfriend, came out condemning Phil's white supremacist actions, while also accepting his apology for the same. Not only that, but later, on February 4 or 5 (judging from tweets of some of the same text) Phil posted another, heartfelt apology, which appears as the splash page of his website:

Since he says, "My band mates are now experiencing the consequences of my behavior," to the point that he has "privately suggested to them that they move on without" him, it seems that, this time the metal community has actually stood up and not made excuses, but has held him accountable for his actions and words at Dimebash, and he is feeling the pressure. Some performances of his current band Down were cancelled even after the new apology, it seems.

And I really want to believe him when he says that "Every citizen in this entire world has the unalienable right to live with dignity and respect without hate or oppression" and "I am utterly responsible for the mistakes I have made, and can only give you my word to no longer do them in the present, through ACTION, not just mere words." I want to believe he really means those things -- not just because I believe in the inherent goodness of people and in giving them a second chance, but because I believe in those things that he said and yearn for other people to believe and work toward them, too.

A couple days ago while working at the library I happened to skim through a book about one of the dogs from Michael Vick's dogfighting ring. At the end of the book was a timeline of the case, what happened to the dogs, and Michael Vick's life afterward. He apparently went bankrupt from being suspended from the NFL and losing his endorsement deals, but then three years later in 2010 he was starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles. My first reaction was, "WTF, they not only let him back in the NFL but gave him a star position, after what he did to those dogs?!" My second thought was, "Well, he did go bankrupt -- is it possible he suffered enough already for what he did, and perhaps ought to have a chance to go on with his life?"

Well, I just looked into it, and it seems like actually, he did not suffer that much -- never served time for animal cruelty, nor expressed any remorse about it, despite the fact that not only did he run a dogfighting ring but brutally tortured and killed the losing dogs.

But anyway, back to Phil Anselmo -- my reaction to the book did lay the groundwork for my reaction to Phil's apology. He has already done more than Michael Vick just by apologizing with such apparent sincerity, and the path is still open for him to atone for his actions. Only time will tell, but the tone of his apology makes me think that this time, maybe he will.

That is why I titled this post "Calling In Phil Anselmo." He has been called out by so many people in the metal scene. He has been sanctioned for what he did. In terms of negative reactions toward his actions, there's not much left to do. It's up to him now to change himself, to make amends, to show he's fit to rejoin the metal scene, a scene that, now in 2016, will no longer tolerate blatant racism from public figures. Because I'm so optimistic about human beings, I hope he will do that and we can invite him back in. (Not that I have any authority to do such a thing. I would guess that POC metal musicians and/or fans would be the most appropriate judges of whether Phil has atoned, although in reality it will probably be some combination of record labels and the media who decide when Phil is "acceptable" again.)

The scene's rising up to speak out against Phil's actions at Dimebash, while awesome to see, was kind of surprising, actually. After all he had been saying stuff like that for decades. But then again, this incident came at a time when race tensions are especially high and the topic is at the forefront of attention in the U.S. It couldn't be worse for him but in a way, it couldn't be better. There couldn't be a better time for us, the metal scene, to practice holding each other accountable, and for us, all of us, including Phil, to work for a more inclusive and equitable scene, and society.

Sometimes a Dress Isn't Enough

I wish I could wholeheartedly recommend Jacob's New Dress by Sarah and Ian Hoffman.

There are so many things about it that are wonderful. First of all, just to see a picture book about gender non-conforming children is great. The main character, Jacob, is a preschool boy who loves to wear dresses. When his teacher asks him what he wants to imagine being while playing dress-up, he says "proudly, 'I'm the princess.'"

Not only that, but the book shows Jacob's parents and teacher being accepting and supportive of his desire to wear a dress, and even addressing the bullying that he inevitably receives. "There are all sorts of ways to be a boy," Jacob's mother says while helping him to make a dress to wear to school. "It's not what I would wear, but you look great," Jacob's father says when he sees him in the dress. When the class bully wonders why Jacob is wearing a dress, the teacher points out that "Not long ago little girls couldn't wear pants."

At the same time, the book doesn't sugarcoat things. It shows the bullying and anxiety experienced by kids like Jacob - male-assigned kids who like "girl" things, whom the authors call "pink boys." Jacob is teased at school whenever he dresses up in dresses, and experiences a "can't-breathe feeling" as he embarks on wearing a "real dress" to school. The book even depicts the mom's trepidation about Jacob wearing a dress to school, as she hesitates before answering him when he first asks. A realistic reaction and probably something that will resonate with parents of GNC kids, no matter how supportive.

While bias and harassment are an unfortunate reality for a lot of GNC people including youth, these problems are particularly severe for those assigned male who want to present in "feminine" ways, due to society's misogynistic attitudes. So, it's great to see a book taking this on, and at a kid's level, where it can help those most vulnerable (GNC kids) and also maybe open up the eyes of other kids and parents.

So after all this good, I was super disappointed when I got to the end of the book, almost the very last line. On the last page, the authors, Ian and Sarah Hoffman, explain that their son "had long hair, wore dresses, and loved the color pink" as a preschooler. They talk about how they educated themselves about GNC children so they could support their son, and point out that "Studies also show that support and acceptance from family, peers, and community make a huge difference in the future health and mental health of these kids." But then they go on to say, "And it's not possible to know whether a gender-nonconforming child will grow up to be gay, straight, bisexual, or transgender. (Actually, we think it's too early to know this about any young child.)" (emphasis added)

Whoa! After all that heartfelt acceptance and support of GNC kids, I'm suddenly hearing denial of transgender kids' identities. I almost put the book back on the shelf at the library, not wanting to bring that message home with me.

While googling about the book and about pink boys, I stumbled upon this essay by Alice Dreger which shed some light on the authors' stance. Trying to ignore the references to "gender identity disorder" (which is no longer the accepted term for transgender leanings - the accepted term is now "gender dysphoria" - and the old term has surprisingly started to get under my skin) I read through it. And I find I agree with the gist of Sarah Hoffman's and Alice Dreger's thoughts on acceptance of GNC children, but I wish they wouldn't formulate them at the expense of children who are indeed transgender.

It's funny because I often find myself on the opposite side of this issue, blasting the stereotype that trans people know from a young age that they're "in the wrong body." Because I didn't. But some trans people do. Jazz Jennings and Tyler, a trans boy profiled by the Washington Post, are two examples who made the press.

Hoffman and Dreger, meanwhile, are worried that kids may be pushed onto a trans treatment trajectory unnecessarily. I can see how Hoffman might have experienced pressure in this direction as the parent of a GNC boy, which might have prompted her to say (as quoted by Dreger):

Most of these gender-nonconforming kids are just kids who don't fall to the most-masculine or most-feminine ends of the spectrum, and that's okay. They don't need treatment, they don't need sexual reassignment, they just need a supportive home life, schools with anti-bullying protocols, and therapy for any harassment they face for being different.

In the essay, she and Dreger both campaign for "more space for boys to fully express who they are," including in ways that are traditionally deemed feminine. That's something I can certainly get behind, being a masculine person with waist-length hair who wears eyeliner or tight pink tops on occasion.

But just as GNC kids should have the chance to be who they are, so should trans kids. If a male-assigned kid wants to wear a dress, cool. And if a male-assigned kid wants a "girl's" name and to be called "she" - shouldn't that also be ok?

What Hoffman and Dreger seem to be really pushing back against is transgender medical treatment, which can indeed start pretty early, as the article about Tyler shows. He was getting checked out to start puberty blockers at age 8. This is still years away from starting hormone replacement therapy, though, and about a decade away from the possibility of gender confirmation surgery, which Dreger makes out to be potentially devastating: "Surgical sex change will render a person infertile, in need of lifelong hormone replacement therapy, and carries significant risk to sexual function and physical health."

While these points are technically valid, I think bringing them up in a discussion of preschool children is fearmongering. Even among adults, most trans people can't afford gender confirmation surgery, which means that at this time these side effects don't even affect most trans people. Much more dangerous to trans people is the bias, harassment and violence they face from an intolerant society.

Lifelong hormone replacement therapy (HRT), meanwhile, is something that many more trans people are faced with, seeing as it's much more affordable than surgery. But how is this any different from any other chronic condition that requires lifelong treatments to stay alive or maintain quality of life? I compare my own fate of having to take a testosterone injection every week, probably for the rest of my life, to diabetics having to take insulin shots. If they deal with it, so can I.

HRT does also have the effect of making a person infertile, at least temporarily, by stopping sperm production or menses, but it can sometimes be reversed, as the many stories of trans men having babies go to show. Also, if sperm banking and egg harvesting were more easily available to trans people, that would also improve their ability to have children. It's not that trans people can't have children, but that the social and medical supports they need aren't there.

To address Dreger's last point, gender confirmation surgery does carry a risk of going wrong, as does any major surgery. But on the particular point of sexual function, my girlfriend and I are both expecting an even more satisfying sex life after her surgery. Just being on hormones has done wonders for our sexual satisfaction, especially hers. She physically couldn't function having sex in a male role. Now that she has a more feminine body, she can finally have sex that she enjoys. Obviously, this is just her experience; other trans people's may differ, but I hardly think most transitioned trans people feel as dismally about their post-transition lives as Dreger would make out.

Lastly, all this is irrelevant to a discussion about young transgender children, because preschool kids are years and years away from these treatments. Surgery is generally not allowed until the age of majority, i.e. 18 in many places; hormone replacement therapy isn't usually started until adolescence (around age 16); and puberty blockers don't come into the picture until puberty begins, around age 9 (WPATH Standards of Care v. 7). For preschool children, all we're talking about is letting the child dress and be treated as a member of their preferred gender - something that can be easily reversed if the child has different wishes later on. The child, family and their mental health provider will have years to assess whether medical transition is necessary. There is no need to raise the specter of the risks of HRT and gender confirmation surgery when we're talking about preschool kids.

I do agree with the basic point that we, as a society, need more space for boys who like feminine things. And Dreger and Hoffman make a good point that some parents may want to "normalize" their effeminate male-assigned child by having him transition into a girl, which might give the child more of a "normal" life. What they are saying is in fact even more radical than supporting trans kids - it's supporting kids of any gender to express themselves however they want.

I just don't like that this is worded in a way that could cast doubt on the actual transgender feelings of some kids. Trans kids need our support just as much as GNC kids. There has got to be a way to support both.

To Dreger, this is an intractable problem:

The problem is, it just isn't clear which children are children like them [transgender people], the children in whom significant gender dysphoria will persist.

What we know is that, in a large percentage of children, gender dysphoria appears to go away (or maybe to become accepted as part of their personalities, so that the pressure to change stops?). We also know that a significant number of gay men report having had interests in wearing typically-feminine clothes and doing traditionally-feminine activities as children. So how on Earth can we know when a boy who wants to wear a dress will need an endocrinologist? Or even a psychologist? It's not that simple.

It is actually really simple. Listen to the kid. There is no way for another person, even the child's parent, to know whether their kid is trans. The only one who can know is the kid themselves.

I understand, of course, that it's not always clear even to the person themselves. I'm still sorting out my own gender identity, after a year and a half of intense reflection and over a decade of submerged questioning. But several things have become clear to me - that using male pronouns and a technically male name, taking testosterone and living as male are infinitely better than what I was doing before. I'm definitely trans, definitely happier having transitioned (because that is possible without surgery, even without hormones - it's called social transition). I'm just not sure exactly what type of trans person I am, so I live under the broad labels "transmasculine" and "genderqueer."

And although I prefer living masculinely, I do have a "feminine" side, too - to the point that I want to go out in a short skirt someday when it'll be clear I'm in drag. So I certainly understand and support wanting a space for boys who like dresses.

And I can see why Hoffman might feel the need to push back against a certain pressure for "feminine" boys to transition - after all, being a boy who likes dresses is perhaps even more stigmatized and at risk for harassment than being a trans woman.

But just because a certain group - pink boys - needs their space, doesn't mean that trans kids don't need theirs, too.

Toward the end of the essay, Dreger quotes Hoffman writing:

I want to be clear that I believe that people who are truly transgender should have societal support and access to whatever therapeutic care they need. If my own son were transgender, I would love and accept him as I do my gender-normative daughter, just as I will love them whether they are straight, gay, or bisexual. My position does not come out of lack of trans acceptance, it comes from wanting to see broader social acceptance for the entire spectrum of gender expression so that kids can really figure out who they are and not be pushed into a box that doesn't fit.

I don't like the way she uses "truly" - it makes it sound as though she is the arbiter of who is "truly" transgender, when this is not something for cis people to decide, not even cis people who are the parents of GNC or transgender kids. But I agree with her on the need for "broader social acceptance for the entire spectrum of gender expression." It should be more open, so that we can have boys who like dresses as well as male-assigned kids who become girls, and all sorts of identities and expressions in between.

And again, I can see why Hoffman might feel the need to push back against pressures to label her son trans or gay, but I'm still disappointed that she chose to end a book that was supposed to be a tool for creating that "broader social acceptance for the entire spectrum" with a statement that negates the experiences of transgender children. Sarah Hoffman's son may not be trans, but there definitely are young children who know that their gender is different from what they were assigned, and who need the full-out change of living as their preferred gender. For all the good that the book Jacob's New Dress may do, I fear that that comment at the end may actually limit the acceptance and support for those kids for whom a dress is not enough.