The ELCA and "Visions and Expectations"

Last week, I heard about a document called "Visions and Expectations" which was a document which was first put out in 1990 and then revised in 2010 (see link above) from the ELCA regarding people who could be ordained to the ministry.  See this link for more history.

I read the document for the first time today and was struck mainly by the footnote that said "This 'Vision and Expectations' document uses the terms 'marriage,' 'marry,' and 'married' to refer to marriage between a man and a woman." [emphasis mine]  one other thing that struck me was the way they referred to "same gender relationships", which would seem to exclude non-binary or agender people.  The final thing was the emphasis on monogamous relationships, which excludes those in faithful polyamorous relationships.

I do get that the document was written in 2010 so I can give some passes due to that.  It was before Obergefell v. Ohio and most states did not allow marriages that were not between a man and a woman to be legal.  I also get that polyamory is a complicated topic for many people.

All that being said, my hope is that the church will come out full throated for equality for all.  The recent decision of the UMC has shown that in America, there are a great many people who fully support full equality for all queer people.  In order for the church to be complete, it must allow all people to fully be a part of the life of the church.  This include queer people, this includes people in polyamorous unions, this includes using language that is open to all and doesn't exclude anyone, and this includes recognizing that the church has actively played a part in the stigmatization and oppression of different groups throughout its history.

I do recognize that another part of the reason for the timidity of the document is that there are more conservative elements within the ELCA that there are individual churches which as not welcoming to all people.  This view is not consistent with the radical love that Christ sought to bring into the world.  Jesus sought out the poor, the disenfranchised, the outcast, and brought them into the fold.  He did not try and exclude anyone from the love of God, rather he flung the doors wide open to allow all people in.  This is the sort of love that is expected of all Christians and that I expect the church to have.  This

                              is agape, a perfect, transcendent love, a love that raised the
                              mountains, created the world, and breathed life into humans.
                              A love that is transformative and validating.  A love that
                              abides no borders because it knows no borders.

This is the love we, as a church, are called to have.  And this love must extend to those who will be ministers and leaders of the church.  When you exclude people from the church, you limit who the church can reach and what will be considered because people have a much harder time talking intelligently about that which they do not know.

Added 3/11/2019-

So I just discovered that there is a new version of the document ("Trustworthy Servants of God") that I was able to read.  While it removes much of the problematic language above, it is in all other aspects identical to the 2010 document.  The document is incredibly bland and generic, which renders it value pretty much a moot point.  I am hoping that something stronger, more forward looking, and more inclusive will come out sooner rather than later.

Written testimony in Support of MD SB196

There was a bill put before the Maryland State Senate this year (which passed the Senate, YEA!!!) allowing non-binary people, such as myself, the opportunity to put a "X" as our gender marker rather than a "M" or "F".  Recently, there was an article in the Baltimore Sun about how people do not support this idea.  I wanted to post my testimony about this to give people the perspective of a non-binary person and so they can see that this is not a huge ask, but rather something which won't affect them but will aid us.

---------------

My name is Matthew Vandover and I am submitting this written testimony in support of Senate Bill 196 which would allow people to choose an unspecified sex for their drivers’ license rather than only male or female.

I am a nonbinary individual, which means that I do not identify as either male or female.  Yet every day I am forced to identify as male or female whenever I submit an online application or form or if I fill out a paper application.  People like me are not being allowed to be ourselves, rather we are being forced into the boxes within the gender binary.  While this bill is not perfect, it is a big step forward to recognizing those of us who are non-binary.

There have been only a few opportunities in my life where I was given the option to choose an option other than male and female, and every time it was wonderful because it allowed me to be who I truly am rather than trying to force me into a box that I do not truly fit in.  My sense of identity, something that cisgender people take for granted, is something that I constantly need to affirm and present to people, so having the government officially recognize this would validate me and anyone else like me.

Every day, I am forced to see the world in gendered terms:  men’s and women’s rooms, men’s and women’s clothing, men’s and women’s sports, etc., etc., etc.  There is rarely, if ever, a choice for someone who is looking for something that is gender-neutral.  While this may not seem like a huge deal, having to constantly fight or remind myself that the gender binary is not the only way to look at the world is a huge drain on me emotionally and psychologically.

I am not a scientist, doctor, or researcher, so I cannot speak about that, all I can do is speak for myself.  By allowing me to identify myself officially as the person I am, the government would go a long way to not only validating my identity, experience, and existence, but it would make life easier and less stressful for future individuals who are non-binary.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you vote in favor of SB196.

Matthew Vandover

Rethinking my labels and sexuality

Over the last few months, I have been having some very nice talks with a new friend and have been thinking a lot about social justice, intersectionality, and other issues.  The other day, I had some thoughts that i needed to talk with them about and yesterday, we spent several hours talking about a whole host of things.

The reason I asked to talk with them (yes, that is their pronoun) is because I have been rethinking the label I give to my sexuality.  For years, I have referred to myself as gay because I am into guys.  But recently, I realized that I am more attracted to male biology (i.e. the penis) than guys in general.  That means that I am into cis guys, trans guys, and even (potentially) trans women who have not had bottom surgery.  The other issue I was thinking about is that since I am non-binary, it is weird to refer to myself as gay, which indicates a guy who is into other guys.  When I was thinking about all of this, it occurred to me that I am closer to pansexual, but that is not quite right either because I am not into women.  Hence, the need to talk with my friend.  After our talk, I think that it is a better fit for me to describe myself as a queer, non-binary individual.

I am fairly sure that I've said this in the past, but to me, labels are of the utmost importance.  I know there are people who see them as limiting, but I see them as me defining myself both to myself and for the world in general.  Labels also allow people to know who you are.  That is not to say that labels are all sunshine and kittens.  After all, some people use labels to bully and harm others.  Or they may use them to discriminate.

That being said, I do think the power of labels given to oneself outweighs any other issues.  There are always going to be people who disrespect any group, and I know that type of disrespect can be incredibly harmful to people.  But if you can find a community of like-minded/supportive people, it can make all the difference, even if there are people who are bullying you.  I do get that there are people who do not like labels, and that is their prerogative, but I personally see that as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Just my thoughts.  What do you think?

On Noah Galvin's Interview

I've read the interview that Noah Galvin (from The Real O'Neals) had with Vulture magazine and I have to say that while I think he made some good points, I have to take serious issue with his comments regarding Colton Haynes coming out.

As I've said in the past on this blog, coming out is a deeply, deeply personal process that needs to be done based on the person coming out, not on the way other people would do it.  There is no right or wrong way to do it.  Some people come out of the closet to the sounds of heavenly hosts and blasting trumpets, other people come out in a much more subtle manner, and others choose not to come out at all.  Every choice is correct and none should be denigrated as "fucking pussy bullshit", which is apparently a reference to the fact that Colton never used the words "I'm gay."  While I understand that Noah may have come out differently (I honestly don't know), Colton said that he has suffered from depression and other issues and that he needed the time to come out in his own way.

Based on the interview, Noah seems to think that there is only one "right" way to come out, which is the real "fucking pussy bullshit".  I will admit that I wish every LGBTQIA person would come out of the closet, if only for their own mental health, there are people who can't for whatever reason.  As Noah rightly notes (based on what I have read in various places), there is still a deep sense of homophobia in Hollywood when it comes to out actors/actresses being hired for non-out roles.  And there are a lot of straight/cisgender actors/actresses who are playing LGBTQIA roles.  Am I saying that every LGBTQIA role *MUST* go to a LGBTQIA person?  Not necessarily, but I do think it would be a good idea.

All that being said, I was very disappointed in the very, very judgmental way Noah looked at someone else's coming out.  While I understand that he has his own opinion (and is entitled to it), what he does not have the right to do is denigrate someone else's journey because it doesn't fit the idea that he seems to have for how the process works.  Shame on you Noah.  Now go grow up.

On dropping the "T" from "LGBT"

For the past several months, there have been people suggesting that the "T" be dropped from "LGBT" because people who are transgender do not have the same concerns as people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  Today on The Federalist website, Walt Heyer, described as "an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery" posted an article entitled "Drop the T from LGBT".  His basic argument is that people who are transgender are psychologically sick and that, for the good of the broader LGB movement, the concerns of "transgenders" (his word) need to be dropped.

A little background about Mr. Heyer.  At one point ( I can't find an exact date), he had sexual reassignment surgery and became a woman and then, almost 10 years later, had surgery to change back to a man.  From what I have been able to discover about him, he doesn't seem to have any special training and relies on his own experiences to claim that being transgender is a psychological disorder and that people who are transgender need therapy, not surgery.

I will also say that he is not the only person who is looking to "drop the T".  I have seen articles from people within the LGBTQIA community saying similar things.  As you may have guessed, I find this proposition to be a very disturbing one.  While it is true that transgender issues are not the exactly the same as issues faced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, the goal of the LGBTQIA community is not only to advocate for same-sex marriage, adoption, etc.  The goal is full equality for all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identification, race, skin color, etc.  As such, we need to embrace all people and welcome them to work with us as we work towards a more egalitarian society.

The more parochial and narrow minded view doesn't see this.  For people within the LGBTQIA community who want to "drop the T", they are merely out for their self-interest and not for the good of all people.  And anyone in the community who takes the thoughts of a transphobic person like Walt Heyer and makes them their own is delusional.  To think that he has the good of the LGBTQIA community in mind is mind blowingly stupid.  He is just trying to create divisions within the larger community to splinter us.  We need to stand together to help create a society where *EVERYONE* is treated equally and is equal.  Period.

On people coming out and our reactions

If you look on almost any entertainment site today, you will see a link about Charlie Carver (Teen Wolf and Desperate Housewives) coming out as gay (example).  As with any other celebrity coming out recently; whether it be gay, trans, lesbian, bi, or anything else; there are a few inevitable comments.  The two most prominent are "Of course we already knew this!" or "So what?"

The second one, I'll dealt with in the past (see here) but suffice to say that it is important for LGBTQIA individuals (children and teens in particular) to have role models who mirror them and their struggles.  Since suicide are prominent due to the rejection of LGBTQIA individuals by their families or churches, the more role models we have, the better.

The first one is the one that absolutely infuriates me.  First off, saying that minimizes the person and what they have accomplished by coming out.  Secondly, you *NEVER* know that someone is LGBTQIA until *they tell you themselves*.  You may suspect, but you do not know for sure.  To assume that a person is LGBTQIA because of the way they act, dress, or whatever is stereotyping an entire group and is extremely small minded.  When someone comes out, they deserve our support and should be applauded for what they have done.  Yes, society has made it easier for someone to come out of the closet, but there are still a lot of people out there who would willingly discriminate against people who are not heterosexual, cisgender, Caucasian individuals (men in particular).

Since coming out is a deeply personal process, we need to respect each and every individual whether or not they choose to come out.  I know that a lot of people recently have criticized Colton Haynes recently for his supposed coy "coming out" and said that he should just come out in order to be a role model. Assuming that he was in fact coming out (which I don't see from what he said), it is entirely his choice how or why to do so.  Whether it is because they just want to maintain a certain level of privacy, may not be ready to accept it yet, or whatever other reason, we should *NEVER, EVER* force anyone out of the closet regardless of the circumstances.  If we truly want to respect people's individuality, we must give them the space and time they need or want to deal with their own lives.

So when you see a story like this, rather than be like "Of course!", congratulate the person for their courage and support them.  To do less is a disservice to us all and a sign of a small mind.

On gender identity

Gender is probably one of the more misunderstood concepts in the English language.  Typically, people see gender as binary, in other words a person is either male or female.  If someone is transgender, then most people assume that they are either male or female which still fits into the binary gender understanding.  However, the problem is that gender is very much a social construct, that is it is not something that is based in biology, but rather something that society creates in order to say that this is for men ("male") and that is for women ("female").  There are some people, myself included, who do not fit neatly into this understanding of gender.

For years, I have known that I am not truly a man in the way society understands it.  In many, many ways, I am very much a female.  I won't bother going into them, but they are numerous.  I have also been aware that I am not transgender, so I always assumed that I was simply a more "feminine" man.  Then, several weeks ago, I ran across the term "genderqueer" and realized that it described me pretty much perfectly.  Before I explain what this means, I want to examine something about gender.

To understand genderqueer, you have to grasp the idea that rather than being binary, gender is more of a spectrum.  Some people are more feminine, others are more masculine, and still others fall somewhere in between.  For those who fall in between the poles of "masculine" and "feminine", the generic terms "genderfluid" or "genderqueer" are often used.  For some people who are genderfluid, they have "male days" or "female days", in other words, they slide back and forth between being more male or more female.  For me, being genderqueer means that I am neither male nor female, but rather a mix of the two.

Someone asked me why I don't use the term "androgynous".  My reason for not describing myself as androgynous is that, to me, androgyny implies that you are neither male nor female, not that you are both.  It may be a technical difference, but it is also an important one.  So, when I say I am genderqueer what I am saying is that I am balanced between the two,  I don't have "male days" or "female days", rather I am just in between the two.  I like painting my nails and often do so because it is me expressing who I am.  I also like wearing men's clothing, although to be honest I have never worn female clothing, but that may come later.  I do have a distinctly feminine side and have a very firm picture of what she is like.

This leads me to what is probably the hardest part of the process for me- my personal pronouns.  For 37 years now, I have been addressed by male pronouns because everyone assumed I am male because I have a penis.  For now, I can accept that because I have not found any gender-neutral pronouns that I am completely comfortable with (although I think I am getting closer).  Since I am neither male nor female, I would prefer something gender-neutral, so that is what I am looking for.  I have found some places online that talk about gender-neutral pronouns and am looking to see what they are like.  If you want to address me with male pronouns, feel free to do so, but I also would be find with "they" or "their" (although the plural aspect bugs me a bit).

What does this mean for you?  In reality, all it means is that you now know something about me that very few people know.  I am still the same person I have always been, I just now know something about myself I wasn't previously aware of and so are you.  I am still attracted exclusively to men, still hope to get married, etc.  In other words, I am still me.

I will update this when I come across the right pronoun for me.