Demanding Trans Rights Be Included in Gay Rights Legislation: How Good of an Idea is It?
Chris Crain discusses “trans-jacking†in a great editorial at sovo.com.
WHEN THE U.S. House passed hate crimes legislation last month that included “gender identity†as well as “sexual orientation†as protected categories, transgender rights activists were understandably thrilled. It was, after all, the first time that trans rights had passed either house of Congress.
But they couldn’t resist a little gloating as well. Mara Keisling, of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told this publication that the vote proved trans activists were justified in demanding inclusion of “gender identity†on other federal gay rights legislation because it didn’t hurt chances of passage.
“It shows unequivocally that those who thought Congress couldn’t pass a trans-inclusive bill were just wrong,†Keisling said. “I don’t know of a single vote we lost because [the hate crime measure] was trans-inclusive.â€
While the Sept. 14 vote was the first time the U.S. House passed a gay and trans-inclusive hate crime bill, it wasn’t the first time House members had voted on such a measure.
A 40-vote margin in the House four years ago in favor of accepting gay-inclusive hate crimes legislation passed by the Senate had shrunk to just 24 votes last month for the gay and trans-inclusive bill. And the number of “no†votes this time around was 13 votes higher than just last year when, in June, the House again voted to accept a gay-inclusive bill passed by the Senate.
The numbers don’t lie.
THE BIGGER PICTURE is even more important. A number of us have criticized transgender rights activists for “trans-jacking†federal gay rights legislation by not only demanding inclusion of “gender identity†but also insisting that gay rights groups oppose even gay-inclusive legislation that failed to include trans protections.
continue reading
It’s one thing to make the case to crime-control conservatives that violent crimes targeting transgendered people require stiffer sentences, and quite another to ask them to expand worker lawsuits to cover those in the midst of gender transition.
The latter saddles gay-inclusive ENDA with an unreasonable and unfair burden, especially considering that some federal courts have concluded trans workers already enjoy protection against being fired because of their gender identity, based on existing federal law prohibiting gender-based discrimination. Many more trans workers would be protected by gay-inclusive workplace rights, since many bigoted bosses consider male-to-female trans workers as “fags†and FTMs as “dykes.â€
*******************
I think Chris completely misses the point. It is NOT different (ENDA vs. hate crimes legislation). And, protecting gender identity or expression protects more gays than not protecting it. Most people are discriminated against not because of sexual orientation but because of gender expression. So called “straight acting” or “passing” gays and lesbians are at much less risk than those who transgress gender norms and expression.
Mr. Frnak’s position of “we’ll take care of us first and then we’ll come back for you” just doesn’t fly — and rarely works in practice. Having said that, I (for one) don’t oppose legislation aimed exclusively at protecting gays and lesbians that is introduced and has a chance of passage. However, I would always prefer to protect as many people as possible, given the opportunity. I happen to think the opportunity exists in the ENDA.
I find this editorial disingenuous.
“Trans-jacking”? As if protection from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression doesn’t protect lesbians, gays, and others whose gender presentations are not necessarily as society expects, as well as trans people? As if the “gay rights organizations” trans groups were lobbying— HRC, NGLTF, among others— do not themselves say they are for the LGB*T* communities? Do we not have a right to speak our minds to organizations who claim to represent us as well? What about trans people who are also gay or lesbian?
Asking trans people to wait for protection until it has been achieved for gay people is also wrongheaded, and make no mistake, if we did not insist on inclusion, we would be excluded by people of an assimilationist bent who are as ashamed of certain portions of the gay and lesbian community as they are of trans people. It is demoralizing and dehumanizing to be told that our rights are less important, we should “take one for the team” and continue to suffer employment discrimination and hate crimes with no legal protections while supporting bills which protect our allies and exclude us.
Crain has no understanding of trans issues. How is qualified to comment on how trans people should organize on our own issues, as he does twice in this editorial? He is hopelessly confused about the spectrum and complexity of gender variant individuals, conflating the genderqueer movement with transgender rights advocacy, which are two separate issues. His case rests on a fundamentally flawed understanding of transgender issues and it saddens me that it should persuade others whom I consider allies.
I’ve read this blog with great pleasure for a few months now, but your uncritical endorsement of Crain’s agenda here just makes me sad.
Clearly, in Crain’s world, there are good gays and lesbians— just normal folks who deserve for their rights to be protected *right now*, and bad queers— trannies and leatherfolk whose agendas will spoil everything for the good gays and lesbians if they aren’t carefully excluded. Do you endorse this kind of separationist strategizing? If so I’m afraid we have to disagree— I think it will be the destruction of us. It turns my stomach to see it glorified here.
kerrickadrian,
I do think that Crain’s editorial was a great one. Good writing is good writing – if I agree with it or not.
My opinion, which was not in the above post, is that trans rights and gay rights should be two different movements. There are many trans people who do not ID as GLB or Q and do not want to be grouped in with the gay rights movement. Trans issues and GLBQ issues, while they may overlap at times, are not one in the same.
GLBQ… that’s a new one to me.
Anyways, Maria, I think that separation of the transsexuals from the gays and lesbians is in a way, traitorous. The GLBT movement has a very common, very central issue: they live outside of the binary expectations of middle America. Differences in gender and sexual orientation push the same fear button in the uneducated, close-minded people, regardless of how that difference is manifested.
There is also something to be said for fighting for *everyone’s* rights. What if, in the middle of the women’s rights movement, a white woman told a Native American, black, or Asian woman, “Including you is hurting our cause politically. We’ll get back to you as soon as we get our own rights.” No one would have done it then, and so why should we do it now?
Dividing the GLBT group based on “we’re more socially acceptable than you are” is equivalent to a bunch of third graders vying for teacher’s pet status. The important part of this is that we’re all in this equal rights struggle together. We all have our own way of expressing ourselves, and we’re all different. That’s going to lead to a broad spectrum that the GLBT group covers.
But everyone of us within that movement is there because of gender and sexual orientation differences with the majority. That’s why we all fight together.
The only thing that saddens me more than GLBQ vs. GLBT, is that there are people who are fighting without having all the facts. Crain is wrong on several points, especially “Many trans activists, on the other hand, still support the inclusion of gender dysphoria on the same list because it allows for insurance coverage for the medical expenses of transitioning genders.” There aren’t laws that require you to take two years of therapy to make sure you really are homosexual, painful and dangerous proceedures to make you into a homosexual, before the state signs off that “yes you are a homosexual.” Welcome to the life of a gender dysphoric individual.
I guess all that I ask is that people read and think before they start spouting off with “me first me first!” There’s a much broader issue here, part ethics part politics. There’s no right answer, or perfect cookbook for how to get through this whole process. Just don’t be so lazy that doing a simple google search on the topic is too hard for you, and spending a few moments thinking about the further implications of the stance you’re advocating.
(I’m sorry about the difficulties I was having with the comment system. Please feel free to delete one of the above. And thanks for responding.)
Kas, I’m not comfortable with grouping everyone who lives outside of the binary expectations of middle America together; forcing some people to be part of something they do not feel they belong to. Moreover, the differences between sex, gender, identity and sexual orientation only gets more blurred and less understood when everyone is placed under the same umbrella, and I don’t believe that is helpful in the quest to educate people in power about these issues; it makes me nervous that it could feed assumptions like “gender identity is an issue of gay people” and “trans people are gay”. Trans, sexual identity, and gender issues deserve their own legislation – not to just be thrown in with sexual orientation legislation.
I don’t know where you are getting GLBT vs. GLBQ. I used GLBQ to separate sexual orientation rights from trans, sexual identity, and gender rights. Two things can stand next to each other and not be against one another. Two different movements do not create one being more important than the other or one group who should be heard first.
Your example with a women’s movement – everyone is a woman in it. I don’t know how that is connected to what I am trying to get across, which is that I believe that different people need different, specialized, legislation.
Thanks for your comments, everyone.
kerrickadrian – I have deleted your second comment (which was the same as the first).
An FTM named Michael of my acquaintance had the following to say, reminding me of Les’ Feinberg’s analogy:
“The GLB and T communities are circles that partially overlap. They’re not the same thing, nor are they entirely separate. For those of us in the middle, who are in both circles, we essentially have a foot in each of two rowboats. If they row away from one another, we’ll drown. If we want to survive, we have to keep them rowing in the same direction at more or less the same pace. That doesn’t mean everyone has to get in one boat, it just means that they have to be mindful of those of us who are in both.”
So while I don’t think that all GLB issues are T issues and all T issues are necessarily GLB issues, I think it is really important that my two communities never hinder each other or leave one another behind. And I think an article which describes my efforts at keeping those boats aligned as “transjacking” is pretty hateful, and likely to have the effect of pushing the boats further apart.
I don’t do splits well and it has a tendency to hurt when I try.
Thank you so much for being willing to engage in dialogue about this issue, Maria.
As an MTF who used to live a “gay” lifestyle prior to my transition, I find it sad that although the acronym LGBTQ can share the same written page, there’s still a separation and even divisiveness that exists in “our” community. Those of us who are out about our alternative lifestyles all know what it feels like to be marginalized in society. Please realize that we are a much larger and more powerful group when we band together to achieve our goals – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Reach behind you and help your brothers and sisters stand with you and beside you. Together we will continue to fight for the unalienable rights we deserve as American Citzens. Help all of those who suffer as you do, not just those with whom you identify. Stop bigotry everywhere, not just where you live.
I completely agree that we need to be mindful of those people who are part of both the GLB and the T communities. I hope my opinion that two different communities may not have the opportunity to receive optimum results by being under the same umbrella does not make it seem that I am endorsing holding back one in an effort to further the gain of those in the other. That isn’t my intention. I really do believe that these two communities would see greater benefits from separate movements in the long run.
Jen sent me this story ( http://www.dailyitem.com/archive/2005/1019/local/stories/02local.htm ) about Bucknell University students wearing T-shirts labeled “gay? fine by me” to promote tolerance for GLB and T people. It’s things like this… – I mean, I just can’t see how a shirt that says “gay? fine by me” promotes acceptance of trans people and it annoys me that it is seen as doing so.