More Than A Symbol
Posted by Matt Zeitlin on October 3, 2007
Piny of Feministe has a long, thorough and convincing response to my argument that dropping transgendered from ENDA is an acceptable, ultimately beneficial compromise. His main point - that excluding transgendered is betrayal seems to be contradictory. If gays and the transgendered were such close allies, why would they splinter so easily? This is also an argument for why Frank’s abandonment of the transgendered — who have been strong allies of the gay rights movement since day one, is all the more painful. The crux of our disagreement, however, is whether this bill is mostly symbolic or whether in its circumscribed form, it has a real chance of passing.
If it has zero chance of being signed, than excluding the transgendered is clearly an offensive betrayal. If, however, it does have a real shot of passing, then pragmatism may be the order of the day. Pelosi and Frank clearly think the bill in it’s amended form has a shot of passing and being signed — 56 percent of American support full employment opportunities for gays and lesbians — or else they wouldn’t make this compromise. As Minipunditpoints out, ENDA could be attached to an appropriations bill the president has to sign anyway, thus challenging him to provoke a veto fight. If that course of action isn’t as much a possibility if ENDA is in its full form, that’s a reason why the amended version is preferable.
It’s unfortunate that we are even having this discussion, but pushing for LGBT rights never won any elections, so incrementalism will always be a large component of any legislative or political LGBT struggle. Of course, I should recognize that as a straight born-male, I will not be personally affected by how ENDA is amended or whether it is passed at all. Piny, being a transguy himself, clearly comes at this issue from a radically different perspective, so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
October 3, 2007 at 1:39 pm
[...] Comments More Than A Symbol … on Nondiscrimination for Some, Fo…A.W. on Arguing Against MyselfHouryad.Com Yes, (… on [...]
October 3, 2007 at 2:26 pm
A couple things… first of all, there’s a surprising amount of support for anti-discrimination laws that cover transgender people too — more than I would have expected, this poll says 61 percent. Obviously it was done by a different group than the 56-percent poll you linked, and the firm who did it was commissioned by the gay-right group HRC, but unless you suspect the polling was massively biased or flawed to the order of 20%+ error, most Americans still are in favor of full employment opportunities for trans people too.
Second, reports seem to be mixed about whether the new ENDA has a chance. The people pushing for it claim to think so, but is it possible they have other reasons for advancing legislation that has a strong chance of failing? I have to admit I’m not a congressional insider by any means — but I am very confused as to why Pelosi and Frank are advancing this bill against the wishes of many of the outside organizations that have been working on making it happen for years. That even includes the HRC, the biggest gay lobby in the country, which supported the new ENDA until today but now are saying that Pelosi and Frank are going forward against their request, albeit with a delay to allow for other possibilities. From what I hear and press releases I see, most of the big gay organizations in the country don’t want this lesser ENDA because it’s not as good for non-trans gays & lesbians either. I think Kevin Cathcart’s quote sums this up well: “You can’t be fired for being lesbian, gay or bisexual but you can be fired if your boss thinks you fit their stereotype of one.” I also saw some poll saying that most gays & lesbians in this country would prefer an inclusive ENDA — so who is going to thank Pelosi and Frank for this bill? Not the people they’re claiming to protect entirely, at least not wholeheartedly, and not the major organizations advocating for it.
As for this question: “If gays and the transgendered were such close allies, why would they splinter so easily?” I don’t hold it against you since you do talk about being a straight non-trans guy, but there is a lot of history here that you’re not aware of. The gay rights movement sparked in the late 60s, and for the last 40 years there has been an uneasy partnership between gay & trans. And more than a partnership, because the lines get blurry a lot. Many trans people are also gay, or spend a lot of their time in gay communities, gay & trans people are very commonly perceived as being flavors of the “same thing.” Gay men are thought to be more feminine, and MTF trans people are thought of as being extreme gay men. Same for lesbians and FTMS. Like Cathcart says, the stereotypes are mingled, even if they’re just stereotypes — and the lines really are blurry in places.
But even though the beginnings of the gay rights movement involved a lot of gay & trans people, and even though trans people have been working in gay movements and for gay rights for decades, trans people have often been the first group “thrown to the wolves” in order to appease mainstream fears about flamboyant homosexuals, to prop up an image of gay people as just like anyone else, etc. That’s why there is a lot of bitterness on one side and guilt on the other. That’s why there’s talk of betrayal, and a legacy of unfairness, etc. That’s part of why so many non-trans gay folks and organizations are very ready to say “hey wait a second, we shouldn’t be leaving the trans people behind again.” We need everyone else to understand this too, and why. Thanks for listening!
October 4, 2007 at 4:30 am
(Just fyi: I don´t actually happen to be a transguy any longer. You would have no reason to know, since I haven´t updated my profile yet and posted a great deal back when I did identify as male.)
Thanks for the response to my response. I´m sorry I left the link to yours out–I meant to paste the html in there, but forgot. I´ll go back and edit it in.
What Holly said, pretty much. The loyalty has been a bit one-sided: organizations like the HRC have been happy to take but not so happy to give back. “We´ll get to it,” has been the party line, and it has created a lot of bitterness. That´s finally changing, but it has taken a while. I would also add to her “thrown to the wolves” comment that an assimilationist picture of gays and lesbians dovetails pretty easily with trans-exclusion: part of the “just like everyone else” picture is conventionally-gendered behavior for gays and lesbians, i.e., masculine boys and feminine girls. Like she says, transmen are often seen as hypermasculine women and transwomen as hyperfeminine men, so it´s difficult to fit them into that strategy.