[Blog/Commentary] [USA] Counterpoint: trans-inclusion is distracting to LGB legislation
Stephanie Stevens
Counterpoint: trans-inclusion is distracting to LGB legislation
Filed by: Austen Crowder
November 11, 2009 6:00 PM
We are a diverse community, indeed. Beyond the unification of media
messages for political action, the need for solidarity regarding
upcoming congressional votes, and the perception of our four (or five,
or six, etc) letter acronym to represent a "whole community," we have
many opinions on what is important to furthering L, G, B, and T
causes. If nothing else I learned from my previous post, it is this
fact.LGBt.jpg
It's okay to have differing political opinions on an issue. If we
didn't have different opinions, there'd be no need for sites like
this, or for that matter any need for political action. The beauty of
US politics is that it is an adversarial system, based on voluntary
participation, and people can use their voice, energy, or money to
support any cause they darn well please. As a wise man once told me,
politics is like Baseball for Big Kids, only the game sometimes comes
with high stakes for people like you and me. It's a game, and in games
we must be willing to take our licks to taste victory.
As proof that a) I'm open to different opinions, and am willing to see
beyond my bias; and b) I'm not above a little thought experiment for
furthering the discussion, I'd like to offer up a counterpoint to my
previous post. Many commentators held the position that trans people
have hijacked the greater LGB movement to forward their own needs.
Politics are a dirty game, where the most cold-hearted plays often
bring the greatest returns. With that in mind I offer a few cold,
logical, professional points as to why trans people should be removed
from LGB legislation, media, and advocacy. It is strategic: however,
it is not kind.
Lack of monetary contributions:
Trans people have little money to fund large-scale activism.
Statistics show that 35% of trans people are unemployed, and over 50%
make less than $15,000 a year, mostly due to employment inequities
caused by discrimination. They are incapable of maintaining the
long-term cash flow required to push their needs through legislation.
Lack of numbers:
Few statistics exist to show the prevalence of trans people, but most
ballpark figures pin ratio of trans people to total population at
anywhere between 1:1,000 to 1:50,000. Pro-trans legislation cannot
hope to offer the same return-on-investment as greater LGB
legislation, as a ratio of dollars spent to number of people affected.
Lack of activists:
Further reducing the political impact of transgender needs is the lack
of activists within the trans community. Some transgender people,
faced with abject discrimination and social Othering, choose to live
in stealth. This invisible population rarely contributes to
discussion, rarely volunteers for LGBT community action, and generally
doesn't get involved with the needs of the trans community.
Proportion of opposition to population too large:
Trans people are few in number, but opposition to trans-inclusive
legislation is great. Separating trans people from LGB legislation
would allow politicians leeway in the form of compromise, as gender
identity clauses could be traded away to further LGB rights. (See
SPLENDA, and the overwhelming trend of ENDA discussion to hinge on
"bathroom bill" needs.)
Social stigma of a mental disorder:
Trans people, unlike LGB people, are considered mentally disordered
according to the DSM-IV, which allows a rhetorical "in" to say that
the community as a whole is disordered. Removing trans people from LGB
legislation allows a "clean-slate" marketing message: "We got rid of
the disordered part." This especially allows masculine gay and
bisexual men to distance themselves from the "wannabe women" or
"feminine guy" stereotype, as the advocacy community would no longer
feel the need to include message-confusing trans voices on their
docket.
Trans people not accepted by general public:
Finally, the image of trans people - namely, trans women - is
difficult for run-of-the-mill Americans to accept. The "man in a
dress" message makes LGB legislation too easy to kill. Removing
transgender from the acronym would allow the LGB movement to rebrand
itself as "everyday American people" that act just like the average
John or Jane Doe.
There it is: clear as crystal. Cutting trans people out of the LGB
spectrum will undoubtedly make gaining civil rights for LGBs easier.
No bathroom bill attacks, no "ugly men in dresses" comments, no
attacks on gay men as being "less manly" or "wannabe women," and trans
people's rights can be used as a bargaining chip for furthering gay
rights. To cisgender LGB people looking at cold, hard political
strategy, it is a slam-dunk move, almost guaranteeing that much-needed
legislation will happen at a faster pace. The question is this: will
it be worth it? Is it worthwhile to banish a minority from a minority
to expedite returns for the minority's majority?
Is this the way the community wants to win? I'd rather know the answer
now than later, so I can figure out where my advocacy energies need to
go.
Filed under: National Politics | Transgender & Intersex
Tags: bisexual rights | gay rights | lesbian rights | LGB | LGBT |
political strategy | politics | strategy | trans exclusion |
transgender
http://www.bilerico.com/2009/11/counterpoint_trans-inclusion_is_distracting_to_lgb.php