Becoming Nicole: The story of a quintessentially Maine family

I grew up in the American South ("from away," as Mainers say), an area not often characterized as tolerant or progressive. In my mind, Maine, along with the rest of New England, was a relative oasis of reason and liberal-mindedness. This characterization was partly due to stereotypes about the Northeast, and partly due to actual statistics.

I remember reading about the Nicole Maines case, in which the Orono school district was sued in 2009 for not allowing the transgender fifth-grader to use the girls’ bathroom. (As most readers will know, Maine’s high court ruled in 2014 that the school administrators violated anti-discrimination laws, ensuring equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification.) 

As a North Carolinian who had just seen a hateful same-sex marriage ban enshrined in the state constitution, two things struck me about this case. First, it seemed incredibly brave for a fifth-grader to identify openly as transgender (and for her family to support her). Secondly, it seemed so very un-Maine for a school to discriminate against a transgender fifth-grader.

The story of Nicole Maines’ (and her family’s) struggle for acceptance (wonderfully told in Amy Ellis Nutt’s Becoming Nicole: The Transformation of an American Family)  is a similar to many stories of civil rights struggles we have seen over and over – a struggle to change attitudes that are often rooted in the fear of otherness. It is the story of combatting ignorance about a very real human condition through education, determination, and outreach. Ultimately, however, it is about persevering, standing for what is right, and staying true to who we are – and doing anything and everything possible to protect our own.

While the Maineses are "from away," their surname seems incredibly apt in the context of their story, their perseverance, and their commitment to leading the way. Dirigo, indeed.

“The hardships of life in Maine have made many of the state’s communities very close-knit. People there are ready to help when a neighbor has a problem.” – Maine, Terry Allan Hicks
Nicole Maines’ story could not be a better example of “taking care of one’s own,” a phrase that resonates strongly with Mainers. While the Maineses had to fight a protracted legal battle over discrimination, it's important to note that there were many helpful Mainers along the way who were supportive of the family and of Nicole's gender identity -- including some school administrators, neighbors, and friends. After Nicole (Wyatt, until she publicly began asserting her gender identity) finally wore a dress in 5th grade, classmates said "It's about time."

Nicole’s twin brother Jonas was as protective of his sister as a brother can be. He kept an eye on Nicole at school, always at the ready in the case that Nicole was bullied. When the family was forced to move to King Middle School, where they did not initially disclose Nicole’s transgender status (going stealth, as Nicole called it), Jonas actively protected Nicole's history, often at the expense of his own social life. (Jonas even got into a fight over his sister.) When their father was still not quite accepting of Nicole’s gender identity, it was soft-spoken Jonas who said to his father, “Face it, Dad, you have a son and a daughter.”

Kelly, Nicole’s mother, was the quintessential Maine grizzly mama, taking the lead in ensuring Nicole’s well-being no matter the cost, eventually uprooting Nicole and separating the family so that Nicole could attend school in Portland. It was Kelly who researched gender issues exhaustively, soaking up every bit of information she could to aid in her protection of Nicole (and of the family). Kelly was a problem solver. Early in Nicole’s life, Kelly knew that she needed to devote herself to ensuring the safety of her family, and she was relentless in this devotion.
“Perseverance is a great element of success. If you only knock long enough and loud enough at the gate, you are sure to wake up somebody.” - Henry Wadsorth Longfellow

Wayne Maines, like many Maine fathers, was devoted to supporting his family financially, and ensuring that no matter what, they always had a roof over their heads, clothes to wear, and food to eat. Although he was reluctant to accept that Nicole’s gender identity was nothing more than a phase for quite some time, he listened, he learned, he evolved, and finally accepted that his son was indeed a daughter. Nowhere along the way did he love her any less, and his vow to keep her safe never faltered. In a state that has long tradition of rugged masculinity, strength, and resilience, Wayne proves that strength can be exhibited in many ways, whether it be a Republican Air-Force veteran dancing with Nicole at the school father-daughter dance, testifying before the Maine Legislature, or becoming a voice in the effort to protect other trans youth.

As Maine goes, so goes the nation.

"I had to live this journey for 10 years to understand it," Wayne told The Associated Press. "Putting ourselves out there...is important so other parents don't have to take 10 years to understand it."

Describing the book in his own words at Bowdoin College this past October, Wayne Maines said the book “is not just about Nicole Maines, it’s about a family, a blue-collar family that tried to do better.”

That's Maine for you.

Duck Dynasty: No, Tolerance Doesn't Have To Go Both Ways

Sorry. Duck Dynasty again. It's always the stupid shit that forces a dialogue, it seems.

There's a lot of whining going on about there being no tolerance for people of faith in America anymore.

Here's the thing about tolerance. Tolerance (which I've posted about before here) does not require that one be tolerant of social injustice. When we denounce beliefs which cause harm to others (and yes, denigrating LGBT folks and equating homosexuality with bestiality is indeed harmful), we are in no way in conflict with the concept of tolerance. Tolerance, in a global declaration by the UN, is defined as "the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments...The practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions."

When people state that they stand with Robertson because he has the right to speak freely about his faith, they're right -- he does have that right. But it begs the question -- are Christians required by their faith to malign human beings for their natural traits? (If so, that's a horribly flawed morality.) And are those who disagree required to tolerate it?

The reason why it has become "politically incorrect" to denigrate gays and lesbians is not because society no longer tolerates religious belief or family values. It's because this view of sexuality and gender is as unethical and as harmful as the Taliban belief that women should stay at home rather than go to school. It is quite simply archaic and discriminatory thinking that has no value in modern society -- thinking that is morally dubious at best. While those who embrace reason, science, and human progress are moving on and leaving behind naive and outdated views from ancient texts, others remain kicking and screaming, believing that others are being intolerant of their Bronze Age ideas about sexuality and gender (or about the origins of the cosmos and life).

If we must tolerate religious views of LGBT-condemning fundamentalist Christians, then we must also tolerate the religious views of women-stoning fundamentalist Muslims. We can't say that one is any more or less correct. They are both morally unsound and archaic views that cause harm to others.

Why aren't people tolerant of those who wish to cure epilepsy or mental illness by drilling holes in the skull? (This was a common early medical practice.) Well, mostly because we learned more about biology, realized that we were mistaken, and we changed our approach.

There is nothing about tolerance that requires someone to tolerate the mistreatment or maligning of other human beings because of their natural traits. So crying foul on this one and saying it's an attack on faith and family values is to miss the point. Because anti-LGBT sentiment is not a value. Any faith that dictates that it is, is morally flawed. Acquiescing to such ideology is not a virtue.

Gingrich: Adoption Agencies Should Be Able To Take Taxpayer Money And Then Discriminate Against Taxpayers

Newt Gingrich, giant baby

Here's something that the GOP candidates (and many other Americans, for that matter) can't seem to grasp:

If an organization wishes to take taxpayer money, they should not discriminate against the very taxpayers who are helping to fund that organization.

Take Newt Gingrich (please), who argued on CNN this morning, that religious adoption services should have the right to turn away gay couples wishing to adopt, in states where it is legal for them to do so.

He argues that these religious adoption services, such as the Catholic Church, have "been forced to close," when, in reality, they closed up shop rather than follow the laws required of them.

GINGRICH: Because you’re saying to religious group, give up your religion. That’s absurd. The idea that the state would impose its secular values on a religious organization is an absurdity.

O’BRIEN: If you want funding. Isn’t that if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No. No. In Massachusetts.

O’BRIEN: You can do whatever you want but if you want funding.

GINGRICH: No, that’s not true. That’s not true. There are states now, including the District of Columbia, which essentially adopt laws that say you can’t offer an adoption service unless you meet the secular standards of the state. They are in effect saying the secular standards of the state are more important than religious freedom. I think it is inherently anti-Christian and anti-Jewish. It is in favor of a secular model, that I think is wrong. And I think that it’s wrong for the government to impose its values on religion. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment, is to not have the government imposing values on religion.

Drop A 3 Dollar Bill In The Salvation Army's Kettle & Give To A Non-Discriminatory Organization Instead

You may want to think twice before dropping money into the ubiquitous Salvation Army red kettles this holiday season. Sure, the organization has been doing wonderful work for decades, and their army of bell-ringers makes it incredibly easy to give while out and about, but you might not know about the organization's history of actively discriminating against the LGBT community.

3-dollar bill, y'all.

According to the Salvation Army's own position statement:

Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.

That seems pretty clear. However, possibly due to criticism, the organization then backpedals with the tired old 'love the sinner, hate the sin' routine:

Likewise, there is no scriptural support for demeaning or mistreating anyone for reason of his or her sexual orientation. The Salvation Army opposes any such abuse.

In keeping with these convictions, the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation. The fellowship of Salvation Army worship is open to all sincere seekers of faith in Christ, and membership in The Salvation Army church body is open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army's doctrine and discipline.

At face value, that statement might make many feel better about the whole thing. But the statement appears to be more PR than anything.

Bil Browning writes at The Bilerico Project:

On its webpage, the group claims that "the services of The Salvation Army are available to all who qualify, without regard to sexual orientation." While the words are nice, their actions speak volumes. They blatantly ignore the position statement and deny LGBT people services unless they renounce their sexuality, end same-sex relationships, or, in some cases, attend services "open to all who confess Christ as Savior and who accept and abide by The Salvation Army's doctrine and discipline." In other words, if you're gay or lesbian, you don't qualify.

The organization also has a record of actively lobbying governments worldwide for anti-gay policies - including an attempt to make consensual gay sex illegal.

The following are five examples of active assaults on the LGBT community by the Salvation Army (via Bilerico):

• When New Zealand considered passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, the Salvation Army collected signatures in an attempt to get the legislation killed. The act decriminalized consensual sex between gay men. The measure passed over the charity's objections.

• In the United Kingdom, the Salvation Army actively pushed passage of an amendment to the Local Government Act. The amendment stated that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship." The law has since been repealed, but it led many schools and colleges to close LGBT student organizations out of fear they'd lose their government funding.

• In 2001, the organization tried to extract a resolution from the White House that they could ignore local non-discrimination laws that protected LGBT people. While the commitment would have applied to all employees, the group claimed that it needed the resolution so it "did not have to ordain sexually active gay ministers and did not have to provide medical benefits to the same-sex partners of employees." After lawmakers and civil rights activists revealed the Salvation Army's active resistance to non-discrimination laws, the White House admitted the charity was seeking the exemptions. 

• Also in 2001, the evangelical charity actively lobbied to change how the Bush administration would distribute over $24 billion in grants and tax deductions by urging the White House deny funding to any cities or states that included LGBT non-discrimination laws. Ari Fleischer, White House press secretary, issued a statement saying the administration was denying a "regulation sought by the church to protect the right of taxpayer-funded religious organizations to discriminate against homosexuals."

• In 2004, the Salvation Army threatened to close all their soup kitchens in New York City to protest the city's decision to require all vendors and charities doing business with the city to adhere to all civil rights laws. The organization balked at having to treat gay employees equal to straight employees.

So, until the Salvation Army decides to evolve, you may want to consider sending a message to the organization. What better way than to drop $3 bills into their red kettles. Click here for a pdf of full-color $3 bills containing the statement, "When the Salvation Army ends its policy of religious bigotry and discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, then, and only then, will this be a real dollar bill." (Courtesy of Irregular Times)

There are many other fine organizations that you can give to this time of year. Find a local secular charity, or choose one of the wonderful organizations below that do not discriminate against the LGBT community:

Goodwill
The Red Cross
Habitat For Humanity
Doctors Without Borders
Foundation Beyond Belief

Boys Beware: One Never Knows When The Homosexual Is About

The below clip is from a 1961 short film called Boys Beware. The film was produced by Sid Davis, with the cooperation of the Inglewood, California Police Department and the Inglewood Unified School District.

Narrator: "What Jimmy didn't know was that Ralph was sick -- a sickness that was not visible like smallpox, but no less dangerous and contagious--a sickness of the mind. You see, Ralph was a homosexual: a person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Self Evident Truths: Faces of the LGBT Community

A reader brought The Self Evident Project to my attention. It's pretty amazing, and exactly the kind of thing that people need to see here in North Carolina (or anywhere, for that matter).

It is no news that the United States discriminates against the LGBTQ community, from marriage equality, to workplace discrimination, and beyond.

In 2010 iO Tillett Wright began a project called Self Evident Truths, photographing anyone that felt like they qualified to fall on some part of the LGBTQ spectrum, from bisexual, to transgender.

This project aims to travel across the USA and capture 4,000 faces.

Read more about the project here.


Self Evident Truths from Self Evident Truths on Vimeo.

Court Rules Wal-Mart Legally Justified In Firing Anti-Gay Religious Bigot

The religious discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act do not include the right to harass co-workers with anti-gay religious tirades, according to a federal appeals court in Chicago.

Via Gay City News:

According to the unsigned ruling, Tanisha Matthews, who describes herself as an Apostolic Christian, worked as an overnight stocker at a Wal-Mart store in Joliet, Illinois. While on a break, she took part in a heated conversation with other employees about God and homosexuality.

Another employee who participated reported to management that Matthews was "screaming over her" that God does not accept gays, they should not "be on earth," and they will "go to hell" because they are not "right in the head." During a company investigation of the incident, five other employees confirmed that Matthews said gays are sinners who are going to hell.

The ruling made it clear that one's rights to religious freedom stop at the moment that a workplace becomes a hostile environment for an employee:

The appeals court ruling stated, "If Matthews is arguing that Wal-Mart must permit her to admonish gays at work to accommodate her religion, the claim fails." The court pointed out, "Wal-Mart fired her because she violated company policy when she harassed a co-worker, not because of her beliefs, and employers need not relieve workers from complying with neutral workplace rules as a religious accommodation if it would create an undue hardship. In this case, such an accommodation would place Wal-Mart on the 'razor's edge' of liability by exposing it to claims of permitting work-place harassment."

Many anti-gay religious groups believe that such rulings, as well as hate crime legislation, infringe on their right to speak of their beliefs, which might include judgment on the LGBT population. Some have gone so far as to state that clergy could be arrested for such remarks made from the church pulpit.  Which is nothing more than hysteria.

If anything, the ruling should make it clear that no one is prohibited from holding or sharing such beliefs -- as long as it's in the appropriate setting. Like, for instance, church.