A Tale of Two UTIs: Universal Health Care in a Nutshell

Copyright juliasudnitskaya / 123RF Stock Photo

There was a time when I tended to contract urinary tract infections on a regular basis. Two particular times, I was visiting a long-distance boyfriend (two separate boyfriends, that is, not at the same time) who, after I assured him that a UTI was not an STI, had to help me address the issue according to the medical norms of the country in which he lived at the time.

One situation took place in Australia. The boyfriend took me to a doctor down the road, where I waited about twenty or thirty minutes before seeing a doctor who ordered a lab to confirm my UTI, and then prescribed appropriate medication. That medication didn't work, so I had to go back to the doctor and get a different prescription. Ultimately my UTI was treated, with about two total hours, including both visits, spent getting diagnosis and medication. My total cost for both visits and both prescriptions was less than $100 (if I'd been an Australian citizen, it would have been free).

In Chicago, on the other hand...

#IAmComplicit

"A product of its time" is not an excuse, but it is a reason. I am embarrassed about some ways I've contributed to the culture. I can only apologize.

The Facts of Life, my very, very favorite show, a show that I believe was hugely ahead of its time regarding its commentary on many social issues of the time, a show that can do just about no wrong in my eyes, is guilty of minimizing sexual assault and contributing to rape culture.

In Part 1 of the 2-Part fourth season finale "Graduation" (1983), Roy the delivery man makes an appearance. His unrequited crush on Jo is a running joke for a couple of seasons (the entire storyline is problematic and will be discussed elsewhere). In this episode, Roy arrives announcing that he has a graduation present for Jo. What is it?

Following Jo's assault, the other girls proceed to make jokes about and to make fun of Jo for "kissing" Roy! Jo tells them that it's not a laughing matter, but no one makes the connection to the last time Jo was sexually assaulted or to the time Natalie was the victim of an attempted rape.

The phrase "a product of its time" is meaningful. It is certainly not an excuse for sexual assault. It is hard to explain what I am trying to say without sounding like a rape apologist.

Free Speech on Campus Pt 2: Is Violence Ever OK?

Copyright: 123RF Stock Photo

[Click here to skip the series intro and go straight to the column regarding violence]

I believe it was way back in college that I first heard of some finding it controversial that there are few right-wing university faculty and staff members. The reason for that seemed obvious to me even at the time: It's all about money. A right-wing ideology tends to go hand-in-hand with a pursuit of profit. The life of an academic involves years or decades of the opposite of profit, so it is a path that few profit-motivated people pursue.

I learned a few other things when I worked on a college campus for ten years. One notable item was that business and engineering programs often charge higher tuition than arts and sciences programs in large part because professors in those fields tend to come from industry rather than academia, and therefore command higher salaries than their Ph.D. counterparts in other disciplines. The same is true of law schools. This is of course a chicken-or-egg cycle in which those fields command high salaries so that the people in those fields can pay for their education which is so expensive because universities have to compete with industries that command high salaries.

The research generally supports my assertion that the left-leaning university phenomenon is more a product of self-selection than of bias in hiring. Right-leaning people don't flock to university environments like left-leaning people do. It's no surprise, then that right-leaning speakers, especially those who are more about entertainment than politics, have poor receptions at universities. Nevertheless, the right prefers to characterize this phenomenon as an infringement on said speakers' individual - and, in general, the right's - free speech. This recently-published column clearly and succinctly summarizes why I think that argument is bogus.

I appreciate being challenged, and my sharing of the above-referenced column on Facebook resulted in a challenge. Thoughtful arguments were raised by a person who disagrees, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. These six speakers are representative of the phenomenon I believe we are discussing.

Before addressing the questions, I would like to underscore the fact that the column focuses not on "conservatives" or "Republicans," but on "modern conservatism," otherwise known as the Party of Donald Trump. People who identify with what's generally known as the right really need to examine whether they want to identify with what this president stands for, in ideology and in deed. Those who continue to support - even revere - him are making a statement that they need to be prepared to be judged for.

Is Violence Ever OK?

Free Speech on Campus Pt. 1: Are Conservative Speakers Having their Free Speech Rights Violated?

I believe it was way back in college that I first heard of some finding it controversial that there are few right-wing university faculty and staff members. The reason for that seemed obvious to me even at the time: It's all about money. A right-wing ideology tends to go hand-in-hand with a pursuit of profit. The life of an academic involves years or decades of the opposite of profit, so it is a path that few profit-motivated people pursue.

I learned a few other things when I worked on a college campus for ten years. One notable item was that business and engineering programs often charge higher tuition than arts and sciences programs in large part because professors in those fields tend to come from industry rather than academia, and therefore command higher salaries than their Ph.D. counterparts in other disciplines. The same is true of law schools. This is of course a chicken-or-egg cycle in which those fields command high salaries so that the people in those fields can pay for their education which is so expensive because universities have to compete with industries that command high salaries.

The research generally supports my assertion that the left-leaning university phenomenon is more a product of self-selection than of bias in hiring. Right-leaning people don't flock to university environments like left-leaning people do. It's no surprise, then that right-leaning speakers, especially those who are more about entertainment than politics, have poor receptions at universities. Nevertheless, the right prefers to characterize this phenomenon as an infringement on said speakers' individual - and, in general, the right's - free speech. This recently-published column clearly and succinctly summarizes why I think that argument is bogus.

I appreciate being challenged, and my sharing of the above-referenced column on Facebook resulted in a challenge. Thoughtful arguments were raised by a person who disagrees, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. These six speakers are representative of the phenomenon I believe we are discussing.

Before addressing the questions, I would like to underscore the fact that the column focuses not on "conservatives" or "Republicans," but on "modern conservatism," otherwise known as the Party of Donald Trump. People who identify with what's generally known as the right really need to examine whether they want to identify with what this president stands for, in ideology and in deed. Those who continue to support - even revere - him are making a statement that they need to be prepared to be judged for.

Are Conservative Speakers Having their Free Speech Rights Violated?

Survivor outed a trans man tonight. Here's what one queer has to say about it

One of my favorite television shows ever is Survivor, and I accept that. I accept that Mark Burnett, the big creator guy or whatever, is a creepy fundy who hates a lot of what I stand for. I accept that Survivor is a "reality" show, in which stuff really happens but is often manufactured. I really don't give a shit; I love the show, and in fact I recently applied to be on it.

Tonight, a big thing happened on Survivor. During the Tribal Council, Jeff Varner turned to Zeke Smith and said, "Why haven't you told anyone you're transgender?"

I gasped. The people at tribal council gasped. Doves flew in terror.

Not because Zeke is trans, but because Jeff outed him like that.

And I'm happy to say that the outrage of the tribe and of most of what I've read online so far is that Jeff outed Zeke, not that Zeke is transgender.

I really believe however, that CBS would not have aired this part of the tribal council if Zeke had not agreed to it. Jeff Probst, Executive producer, really isn't a monster, I don't think. If that's true, Jeff outed Zeke only to Jeff Probst and their other tribe members. Which doesn't make it right, but at least gives Varner some vindication in his choice to GO THERE.

Then again, this is TV. You're on camera; anything can be used. If you say it on camera, it exists in the wild.

Zeke, to his credit, was very quiet and classy throughout the whole ordeal. It may have indeed been the case that media savvy Zeke recognized Jeff's comment as his national outing no matter what he wanted. And he was OK with that. In that case, I just respect him for respecting the inevitable.

Or it could have been that he was just fucking outed by someone he trusted and he thought his best bet was to take the temperature of the room and go from there.

Thankfully, when Zeke was outed, the immediate outrage from the rest of the tribe was directed at Varner for outing him. Not one person was outraged that Zeke hadn't told them he was trans. Special support was provided by Sarah, who admitted that she probably thought trans people were weird from her upbringing, but seeing that oh, THIS is what a trans person looks like takes all of that away.

I think this was good. Zeke may have gotten thrust into a position that he didn't exactly ask for, but on the other hand, he ended up an outstanding ambassador.

So the next thing Survivor should do is cast me, right?

I liked restroom equality before it was cool

In a law school class in the spring of 2013, I mentioned in passing that I thought that there shouldn't be gender-segregated restrooms. There was an understated gasp, and one classmate confronted me after class, suggesting that the notion was absurd. "Tell that to a sexual assault victim!" he declared. Ignoring his presumption that I was not one, I tried to respond by explaining that the specter of the sexual assault in the bathroom is a myth and the assumption that a gender-neutral mixed restroom will automatically lead to sexual assaults is grossly insulting to men. He brushed me off as though I'd suggested that Earth is flat, coming just short of actively mocking me, and I lost a little respect for him.

Conservative states continue to use dubious justification try to introduce legislation to keep penises and vaginas in separate restrooms, despite the fact that the number of assaults by trans women in women's restrooms remains at zero and the sky has not fallen in places like Colorado, which prohibits discrimination against trans people in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation.

I stand by my trans sisters and brothers in their continued effort to be able to pee in whichever segregated restroom matches their gender identity. Even more than that, though, I desperately want to get away from the notion that restrooms must be segregated into penis/male/masculine and vagina/female/feminine in the first place. Most discussions start with taking that notion for granted, and I refuse to accept it.

Many religions have strict mandates about behavior of men and women and whether and under what circumstances they can even be in the same space. It is not uncommon for progressives to criticize such rigid mandates regarding gender, while expecting tolerance of those who choose to practice such religious mandates and also being aware that "choice" is itself a loaded word that is meaningless in certain environments.

What does this have to do with piss and shit? I'm here to tell you that the thing that makes you cringe when thinking about a mixed-gender restroom is the same thing that drives religions and cultures of varying extremism to impose gender-based requirements and expectations on their members.

Heh. Members.

Look, it shouldn't even be controversial for a single-use restroom to be non-gender designated. Most of us have gender neutral restrooms in our homes. I bet more than half of randomly-selected responders would admit to having used an other-gender-designated single-use restroom because of a long line or an 'out of order' sign, or because they really really had to go.

I would very much like to understand what it is that opponents are really afraid of when I suggest that the default for a large restroom should be gender-neutral mixed use. Picture a restroom at a baseball stadium with fifteen or so stalls and a wall of urinals or a piss-trough. And I would also advocate a proportional number of single-use rooms to accommodate those with religious objections, PTSD, or people who just can't bring themselves to accept a mixed-use room.

Think of the porta-potty setup at your average music festival, where there is either one line or several, non-gender designated, and men and women use the same stalls. It would be exactly like that except in a room and with plumbing. When porta-potties are gross, it's usually not about the fact that there were men/women/other all using the same ones, but that you're not flushing and you have limited access to sinks.

The bathroom debate is only one symptom of the real problem, which is the fact that we are so OK with early and insistent grouping of "boys" and "girls" based on their genitalia and with a whole giant host of assumptions attached. Sure, if procreation is a consideration for a particular relationship, then the individuals in that relationship should talk about what is biologically possible, but that's really no different from what every relationship should do. It is my opinion that failure to communicate regarding a future with children is a huge reason that relationships end, but that's another blog.

I'm glad the dialogue is happening. The gender binary has frustrated me for a long time and I'm glad that my voice is finally in the discussion. I don't have much expectation of my vision occurring any time soon, but still, I feel vindicated.