LGBTTIQQ?

by Stephen H. Miller on June 30, 2012

There may actually be a valid point in trans activist Ashley Love’s Washington Blade commentary, that point being “The medical condition transsexualism is neither equivalent nor subservient to gay, lesbian or bisexual sexual orientations….” But it’s pretty much lost in all the politically correct leftwing blather about:

This complicated matter of conflation, colonization and censorship of transsexual issues … In theory, the coalition known as LGBTTIQQ is different communities aligning themselves to accomplish a common goal. But what happens when that coalition’s top priority ranks the needs of a particular, more privileged group over the more discriminated against groups? An uprising is what happens. The “Transsexual Spring,” the widespread and growing resistance against misrepresentation, calls for major reform in education concerning our birth challenge.

Which all end ups calling for a boycott of GLAAD for insufficient deference to transsexual sensitivities.

Interestingly, as another commentary in the same Blade issue, by Dana Beyer, points out, two months ago a landmark EEOC decision expanded the definition of “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. As a result, the proposed Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), Beyer argues:

“is essential for the gender-conforming gay community, who are not yet protected under Title VII. But while it may be a political necessity, it is not a legal necessity to protect transgender Americans, who are covered as described above.”

But how would that fit into the narrative of gays colonizing and censoring transsexuals?

More. From the comments, “Andy” writes: “Funny how the trans activists who demand there by no ENDA without trans inclusion did NOT insist there be no EEOC ruling expanding Title VII to include transgendered people without also including gays and lesbians. Looks like solidarity is a one-way street…”

{ 12 comments }

Houndentenor July 1, 2012 at 9:38 am

Equal means equal.

The rest of this argument is BS. Gender is a construct. Sex and sexuality exist in nature, but the science is too young for us to fully understand how it works. Labels and definitions, therefore, are just something someone made up. They may or may not correspond to naturally occurring phenomena.

All of that is moot. Gender non-conforming people have the same rights as everyone else. It shouldn’t matter whether we lump them in with gay people or not. They shouldn’t face discrimination.

Some people are different from me. That doesn’t make them wrong or bad or evil or scary. Just different. It doesn’t injure me in the least. Quite the opposite, actually. It makes the world a more interesting place. Not everyone fits neatly into the supposed male/female dichotomy any more than everyone is strictly straight or gay. Biology is more complicated than that.

John Howard July 2, 2012 at 1:32 pm

No one has a right to reproduce with someone of the same sex or as the sex they were not born most likely able to reproduce as. There may be some people for whom their “most-likely-to-conceive-as” sex is ambiguous, but a lab would know if they were creating opposite gametes from stem cells, or replacement gametes from stem cells. The difference is important, it’s the difference between transhumanism and medicine.

Everyone here at this blog seems to be a Libertarian Transhumanist, so you’d all side with the Transgenders about their rights to change sex. But most gay people are not so interested in same-sex procreation, they just want the benefits and security of civil unions and the liberty to have intimate same-sex relationships.

Jorge July 1, 2012 at 11:40 am

“But while it may be a political necessity, it is not a legal necessity to protect transgender Americans, who are covered as described above.”

This is counting the chickens before they hatch, but I think Supreme Court precedent is favorable toward prohibiting sex discrimination in the workplace on the basis of gender roles. See the unanimous Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) decision about male-on-male sexual harassment, written by Justice Scalia. In fact I’ll read it again–it’s one of my favorite decisions besides Lawrence v. Texas (you know I worry about harassment based on perceived gender identity and expression, too) “…statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed”. I doubt Scalia would extend the reasoning in his opinion (which is quite narrow) to cover transgender/transsexual people, but there are several reasonable ways to do so.

Jorge July 1, 2012 at 11:45 am

Oh, and I tink the boycott is an overreaction, but considering my own loyalty to the transgender movement (definitely at a failing grade), they’re entitled to their opinion.

Mark July 1, 2012 at 7:12 pm

During debate over ENDA in 2007, we were repeatedly told of the moral failings of pursuing an anti-discrimination law focused exclusively on gays and lesbians–on grounds that there might be political support for such a statute, but there definitely wouldn’t be support for a statute that extended beyond gays and lesbians. I assume now the trans community will drop their opposition to such a statute, or will they still demand that gays and lesbians wait indefinitely for an anti-discrimination law?

TomJeffersonIII July 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm

1. Sex, gender, sexual orientation and are not all the same thing, but they do tend to be related on some level (by fact or stereotype). Yes, not all gay men are effeminate or have ‘effeminate’ hobbies or interests. Yes, not all gay women are butch or have butch hobbies or interests. Although, their are pretty deep rooted cultural stereotypes that link gender and sexual orientation. Setting aside the fact, that (to many straight people) sex-sex attraction or sexuality is ‘gender non-conformity’ by default.

2. ‘Sex’ harassment or discrimination may or may not cover gender identity or same-sex harassment. The Supreme Court said it did in 1998 (for harassment), but the courts are conflicted when it comes to whether or not the harassment is really based on sex versus gender or sexual orientation.

3. ENDA (in any form) is probably not going to get passed as long as you have elected officials in certain Congressional Districts or States who feel that voting for this bill will hurt their prospects of getting re-elected. No one wants to deal with this because it is not all about shouting out the ‘Republicans are all bad or good’/'all Democrats are good or bad’ mantra.

4. I think that sometimes leadership in gay rights groups and transgender rights groups do not always think about empathy, tact and strategy as much as they could. It is all about buzzwords about tossing people under a bus or blaming each other for prejudice or harassment.

Mark July 2, 2012 at 8:43 pm

On item 3, an ENDA focused on gays and lesbians passed the (Democratic) House in 2007, only to provoke an uprising from the sort of figures Stephen profiles in this post for not excluding transgender anti-discrimination as well, even though there’s far less support for such a measure. Under these circumstances, no bill was even possible in 2009-2010.

I agree ENDA in any form won’t get passed as long as Republicans control either house of Congress.

Andy July 2, 2012 at 8:42 pm

Two months ago a landmark EEOC decision expanded the definition of “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.

Funny how the trans activists who demand there by no ENDA without trans inclusion did NOT insist there be no EEOC ruling expanding Title VII to include transgendered people without also including gays and lesbians. Looks like solidarity is a one-way street, and they STILL condemn gay people for insufficient deference to them! And our “leaders” still fall for it.

Tom Scharbach July 3, 2012 at 8:09 am

If we are serious about “equal means equal”, then we work to eliminate legal discrimination against transsexuals as well as gays and lesbians, and we work to eliminate legal discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as transsexuals.

The issues are not identical and the timetable of what is politically and legally possible might be different, but it is the same fight.

Bickering and sniffing about who says what about whom, and who pulls what oar in what direction from time to time, is counterproductive.

Houndentenor July 3, 2012 at 2:36 pm

It’s a trap is what it is. Each group pitted against each other over who gets what before whom. Everyone loses except those who don’t want equal protection for all. Some people are different. It doesn’t hurt me in the least that everyone is not like me and that they are perfectly happy being the way they are. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that.

Thamra Crawford July 5, 2012 at 10:22 pm

I see most don’t have a clue what it was like living in the 50′s and 60′s and fearing for your life if you were found out. My younger brother and I came out in the early 70′s him as gay me as wanting to correct my gender (Transsexual or transgender wasn’t used then as it is now). In the early 70′s the gays and transsexual fought for our rights and the gays got a break being taken off the list of being a mental case but not the transsexual. That only took place somewhat last year for the transsexual. They have the transsexual lumped together with cross dresser,transvestites and many fetishes. This has only confused people about transsexual and the news/TV media has only made it worst. The so called LGBT community is a joke for transsexuals because they only tolerate us and use us for numbers to get what they want and screw us if we get leave out of a law or bill.

Andy July 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm

The so called LGBT community is a joke for transsexuals because they only tolerate us and use us for numbers to get what they want and screw us if we get leave out of a law or bill.

Oh, spare us. And get your facts right if you want to make an argument. Gay men and lesbians PASSED UP the chance to pass an orientation-only ENDA in order to be inclusive (for which you give us no credit at all, thank you very much), whereas transgendered people are now protected under Title VII. You, of course, ignore all that in order to play the greater victim card. Hope you enjoy it.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: