Fierce Pride

As I laced up my cleats, energy coursed through my body. I felt excited, but nervous. After all, I hadn’t played at any competitive level in 30 years. How would my 48-year-old body respond to the demands of soccer, even at a recreational level? I knew I was in good shape. Five years of dancing regularly had certainly helped me with that. But dancing is one thing, running around on a soccer field quite another. 

The opportunity to play soccer again arose rather unexpectedly. A parent of one of the transgender youth sent out an inquiry to the community, seeking to determine if there was enough interest to put together a transgender/gender nonconforming (T/GNC) soccer team for the first time in the history of our city’s recreational league. This would be a bold step. The T/GNC community often lacks the chance to play sports and participate in other activities because of fear of how we will be welcomed, or not, by others. Sports can seem like a particularly harsh environment, one in which gender norms are strictly enforced by other players and by society. Nevertheless, enough of our local T/GNC community responded positively that we decided to pursue the idea.

The parent had spoken with the local women’s soccer league, which also hosts the local coed league, about the possibility. To their credit they expressed willingness to educate themselves and the officials and to work with us on any issues that might arise with other teams. The league rules dictate that no less than six female players must be on the field at all times. To our frustration, the designation of female by league rules is determined by the marker on one’s driver’s license or state ID. For some of our team members, this meant they would not be recognized consistent with their personal identity. We decided that this restriction wasn’t a deal breaker and we would find a way to work with the league and the referees to make sure people were properly identified.

In addition to members of the T/GNC community several parents of T/GNC kids and a few allies, including my son, joined the team. We would be quite an interesting group, especially given that some members of the team had never played soccer, others like me had not played in many years, and a few were sharp and proficient. We decided that regardless of how games went, we would support one another and aim to have a great time. Once we selected purple as our team jersey color, we also decided that we would be the best-looking team on the field.

Thus I found myself lacing up my cleats by the side of the field on a Sunday evening. I would be in the starting 11 for the first match. As kickoff drew near, I tucked my shin guards in my socks, drank some more water (extremely important in the hot, dry desert climate!) and prepared myself mentally. I took my position in midfield, the whistle blew, and I started to run. I had hoped that, being a recreational league, the pace of play would be slower than it turned out to be. Despite that, and despite the fact that we conceded several goals, I and my teammates had a great time. We each gave our best, and we supported each other throughout the game. I have never played for a team with such positive team spirit. As the game progressed, I found the skills that had been drilled into me so many years earlier begin to return. I also found that my dance-honed leg muscles were not used to the different demands of playing soccer, and began to experience muscle cramps. Rotating off and on the field regularly helped, but by the end of the game I was playing with a distinct limp. Regardless of this, I loved it. It felt wonderful to be back on the field, playing a game I have always enjoyed. It felt amazing to face a challenge that I had not been sure I could accomplish and prove that I could. Later, reflecting on the game, I also recognized the growth in my mental attitude. I was not the best player on the field. But my worth and my identity didn’t depend on that. I gave the best I had to give that night and it was enough. I was enough, regardless of the outcome of the game, regardless of how others might rate my play.

We have games throughout the summer. I expect to continue to be challenged by this new endeavor. Our second game was physically much harder than the first because my body was already tired going into it. But the conditioning will come with time. Above all, I want to maintain the positive mental attitude (which can still slip at times as well, as it did after the second game) and I want to sustain a positive team spirit. We chose the name Fierce Pride for our team, and I think it suits us well. We are proud to be out there, representing ourselves and our T/GNC community with confidence, joy, and enthusiasm. We are not ashamed. We are winning by the fact that we are showing up. I am proud of my teammates, and I am proud of myself. I could have chosen to pass on this opportunity. No one would have judged me. But I made the choice to step out of my comfort zone (again!) and demonstrate to myself that I am enough. We as a community are enough.

That is a pangolin on our jersey. There's a story behind that, which I may tell another day.

If you live in Tucson, we’d love to have you come support us at our games. Contact me to get a schedule, or check the league website and look for Fierce Pride.

Discrimination Not Allowed

This week saw two significant decisions in supreme courts, one in the United States Supreme Court, the other one here in Arizona. Both of them affirm that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation are illegal, although on the surface the U.S. case looks quite the opposite. These decisions are encouraging, though the SCOTUS case may create a host of problems in the short-term.

When I first saw the decision of SCOTUS in regards to the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I felt very discouraged. It appeared that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of discrimination on religious grounds. As I started reading more though, I saw that the decision actually presents language that solidifies the civil rights of LGBTQ persons, stating in its legal analysis:

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.”

In other words, we’re entitled to the fundamental protection of our civil rights by our society. That’s a win, one that was amplified when the Arizona Supreme Court, not exactly known as a bastion of liberalism, ruled in favor of the City of Phoenix’s ordinance banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. That court stated:

“What Appellants cannot do is use their religion as a shield to discriminate against potential customers.”

I find these two statements very refreshing and hopeful. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS ruling leaves open the possibility that the court will allow some exemptions on religious grounds in the future and has greatly energized all those who proclaim their right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. This deeply disturbs me, not only as a transgender lesbian, but as a human being. To allow any business the right to discriminate against any other group or individual on the basis of their personal religious beliefs reverses all the (limited) progress we have made in civil rights in this country in the past 50-60 years.

What gives a business owner the right to refuse service to someone simply because they disagree with who that person is? How would Christians, who are the loudest ones in favor of such “religious freedom” laws, feel if those same laws were turned against them by someone of a different faith? In fact, Christians are quick to decry, and rightfully so, when their coreligionists face legal and social discrimination in other countries where Christians are in the minority. Yet they turn around and want to practice the same discrimination here, simply because they believe they are the majority and have the power to do so. That reeks of hypocrisy.

The issue comes down, at least in part, to privilege. Christians feels safe arguing for laws that allow them to discriminate based on their beliefs (which are far from unitary), because they already have enshrined in law the protection to not be discriminated against on the basis of those beliefs. They can exclude others, but the law currently says no one can exclude them on the basis of their religion – and rightfully so. But having achieved their protection under the law doesn’t give them the right to now use that privilege to exclude others from those same protections. 

Looking at it from a different angle, if we refuse to grant full civil rights to the LGBTQ community, we begin to chip away at the protected groups already defined by law, such as race, ethnicity, religion, etc. We open the door to a society that becomes increasingly divided and in which those with the most power and wealth will determine who receives what services. The White Christian business owner could choose not to serve Blacks, or gays, or Native Americans. Conversely, the Black Muslim business owner could choose not to serve Whites, or Christians, or whoever they feel is unworthy. Unfortunately, that type of society seems to be precisely what wealthy White Christians want, because the majority of power and wealth in this country still rests in the hands of White people, who largely identify as Christian. This mentality underlies the whole MAGA philosophy espoused by our current unpresident.

Ultimately I do not know how to engage in a reasonable conversation with someone who believes that their interpretation of some supposedly divine moral code allows them to determine who is worthy of full participation in society and who isn’t. I can point out the inconsistencies in their logic or the application of it. I can point out how their logic could in fact be turned against them by others who view their religious beliefs as ungodly. But in the end, those arguments are unlikely to sway people. If they cannot see me as a human being worthy of full dignity and equal rights, logical arguments will not change their minds. I continue to live my life openly as a public rebuttal of those who belief I do not have the right to be myself.

These two court rulings give me hope that sanity and justice will prevail even in the warped political environment that dominates our country. But I remain wary and will continue to advocate for the full equality and inclusion of everyone in society, because until all are free and equal, none are.