Every movement struggles with the desire for the ideal and the need for the practical. A column I recently wrote addressed the fallacies in the argument that the gay civil rights movement must include protection for gender identity in gay civil rights laws because gays "owe" transgender activists some debt for drag queens' participation in Stonewall. I made three points:
- the importance of Stonewall has been exaggerated;
- the importance of drag queens to Stonewall has been exaggerated; and
- even if I am wrong about #1 and #2, that doesn't mean we must include transgenders in gay civil rights laws, since there are numerous considerations of practical politics here.
Most replies to that column, as usually happens when one writes critically about the "T" in "GLBT," consisted of name-calling. Many responses called the column "transphobic" or "elitist" because it would "leave some people behind," as if every law doesn't do that in some fashion.
There were, however, a couple of rational responses that challenged me on substantive grounds. These responses argued that there is a close connection between gay and transgender issues that ought not be ignored by gay civil rights laws. These responses raise important issues.
There are two separable questions when it comes to inclusion of gender identity in gay civil rights laws. First, is inclusion warranted as a matter of principle? Second, if it is warranted as a matter of principle, is it sensible as a matter of practical politics?
On the first question, I am not convinced that gay and transgender issues are so connected that principle dictates they be dealt with together in all legislation. The standard argument from principle seems to be that gay issues are a subset of all gender issues because gays, by having same-sex mates, transgress traditional gender/sex boundaries.
There are many things to say about this argument, but let's focus on one basic point. Since the beginning of the gay civil rights movement, there have been people trying to claim the cause is really about something other than homosexuality. For some 1960s and 1970s activists, it was really about ending an unjust capitalist system, or supporting movements for national liberation, or ending racism, or eliminating poverty. For many (especially male) activists, it was really about sexual liberation generally, as if we were fighting for the right to fornicate in the streets or with children.
I distrust claims that gay civil rights is really about something else (like poverty or gender). To me, such arguments seem like another way of erasing gay lives and concerns by subsuming them to some other cause favored by the advocate.
Such arguments are also reductionist: they reduce the gay experience to one aspect of life. Take the issue of our supposed "gender transgression." Many gay people see themselves in gender-conforming terms and seek gender-conforming traits in their mates. Is this in itself wrong? I don't think so, any more than it's wrong to prefer tall lovers to short ones or brown-haired ones to blondes. Does having a same-sex mate transgress traditional gender expectations? Of course, but this singular act of rebellion does not make a gender revolution of the type transgender activists seek.
On the second, practical issue, even if I were convinced that as a matter of principle gay and transgender issues are linked, I would still hesitate before adding "gender identity" to gay civil rights legislation.
As a legislator, I might personally support protecting transgenders from much private discrimination. But unfortunately, very few of my fellow legislators (in most places) would share my view. I could, of course, take the time and effort to explain it to them, but that period of education might add years to the final passage of my gay civil rights law. In the meantime, gay people will continue to face discrimination.
Not every law has to address every problem. Progress means that you get what you can while you can get it. Then, when you can get more, you do so. Progress comes by degrees, not (usually) by revolutions. The black civil rights movement did not fight to protect people from age discrimination. Was that ageist?
In almost every jurisdiction in the country where both gays and transgenders are protected, the protection for gays preceded the protection of transgenders by many years. This gap allowed people an opportunity to see that the world didn't end by protecting gays and that taking the additional incremental step of protecting transgenders also wouldn't cause it to end. This pace may be unsatisfying but it's preferable to waiting for a perfectly inclusive law that may never come.
I suppose one could respond that there is a very practical concern for gays involved here: if gender expression is not protected by law some gays will face discrimination for their gender presentation (butch women, effeminate men) rather than for their sexual orientation (gay) and yet will not be protected by the law.
This scenario is theoretically possible, but is not very likely. Almost any gay person subjected to discrimination for being gender variant will have been subjected to explicitly anti-gay abuse and thus will have some legal recourse under a law that protects sexual orientation but excludes gender identity. I certainly would not hold up the passage of a gay civil rights law to reach extraordinary cases.
We need to begin a reasoned, substantive, open discussion of these issues. The inclusiveness of "GLBT" might make us feel good, but it shouldn't become a talismanic barrier to progress.