I won't have any transgender people at my Christmas party this year.
Actually, I won't have any non-transgender people either: I'm not hosting a party this Christmas. But in years past I've hosted many, and I've never had any transgender people attending, unless you count one former women's studies student who identified as transgender "for political reasons."
I have nothing against transgender people; I just don't know many. Nor do I have anything against diversity-indeed, my parties have been quite diverse: young and old, gay and straight, nerdy academics and slick business types (not to mention slick academics and nerdy business types).
On the other hand, they've been populated by mostly white, mostly educated, mostly professional folks-the kind of people my partner and I typically encounter in our daily lives. Our parties have had relatively few lesbians and surprisingly few blacks, given that we live in a majority-black neighborhood in an overwhelmingly black city (Detroit). They would not impress most college diversity offices.
And I don't really care.
Please understand: I'm a proponent of diversity. I've written in support of affirmative action, and I vocally opposed the initiative that ultimately banned it in Michigan public institutions. But imposing it on our social gatherings is just foolishness-which is not to say that people don't try.
A few years ago some friends of mine observed that Detroit's lack of a "gayborhood" meant that gay city dwellers often felt socially disconnected. So we started brainstorming about ways to draw them together-an online community, a series of house parties, that sort of thing-and we formed a group. Then one of the local GLBT organizations got involved. Every time we tried to sponsor an event, they'd interrupt: "Wait; you don't have enough lesbians on board." So we brought more lesbians on board. "Wait; you don't have enough African-Americans on board." So we brought more African-Americans on board. "Wait; you don't have enough working-class people on board." And so on.
Now we have no one on board. The group never got off the ground, having collapsed under the weight of the artificial diversity imposed on it. What began as a band of like-minded gay Detroiters was forced-on purpose-into a hodgepodge of individuals with relatively little in common. Not surprisingly, those individuals very quickly decided they had other more pressing interests.
When "birds of a feather flock together," why fight it? It's one thing if those groups are hoarding resources that others are entitled to; it's quite another if they just want to hang out.
Ironically, the insistence on diversity sometimes results in a rather opposite problem, stemming from what I call the Diversity Fallacy. It would seem that, for any minority group X, having more members of X creates more diversity. But that's true only up to a point, after which the group is no longer underrepresented and the principle becomes fallacious. So, for example, adding another African-American to the Detroit City Council (eight of whose nine members are black) would not make it more diverse: it would make it less so, all else being equal. This is true despite the fact that, even in Detroit, African-Americans are thought to "count" toward diversity in a way that whites do not.
Obviously, this problem is not unique to the GLBT community. It arises anywhere cultural identity and diversity attempt to coexist. But the GLBT community has been revisiting it of late, mainly because of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
ENDA passed the House in a version that includes sexual orientation but not gender identity. As a result, the GLB community has been accused (largely from within its own ranks) of throwing transgenders under the bus. Critics have recalled the women's movement of the early '70s, many of whose leaders denounced lesbians as a hindrance to the movement's goals.
The analogy is clumsy at best. Every lesbian is a woman; not every transgender person is gay. Sexual orientation and gender identity (unlike womanhood and lesbianism) vary independently, even granting that they have important affinities.
What the ENDA debate reminds us is that the GLBT "community" comprises diverse sub-communities, which overlap in various and sometimes awkward ways. No G's and L's are B's; some G's, L's, and B's are T's; all T's are either straight or GLB. Every one of us has both a sexual orientation and a gender identity, though one or the other of those traits may dominate our individual political agendas.
But the debate also reminds us that communities are at least partly a matter of choice: choices about which alliances to form, when to form them, when to honor them and when to break them. Choices that are easy to make when sending Christmas-party invitations become far more difficult when people's livelihoods are at stake.
John Corvino's "What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?" is now available on DVD.
12 Comments for “The Diversity Fallacy”
posted by Karen on
I’m not horribly upset by the ENDA debacle, either way – mostly because I’m an optimist and am pretty sure everything will eventually work out ok.
But still, you sound like those people who point at the differences between black people’s struggle for civil rights and our struggle for civil rights, and tell us that because of those differences, we have no right to ever draw that analogy or appeal to that history.
Of course there are differences between the lesbian problem in the women’s rights movement and the trans problem in the LGBT rights movement.
But the similarilties are there, they are significant, and they are instructive. ENDA aside, it pains me to hear so many GLBTs expressing the desire to thrown trannies out of the boat. We’re all “in trouble” with society for the same basic reason. We all transgress gender in some fundamental way. Some in presentation, some in attraction, some in both.
Sticking together is probably going to be more helpful than not sticking together. The group that “merely” transgresses in the arena of attraction and stays within the accepted gender presentation is not going to be accepted for that. And the group that transgresses only in presentation is not going to be accepted for that. And there’s so much overlap.
As for diversity, I am involved in a cultural activity that is mostly afro-carribean, and I always find it interesting when I am the only white person in the room. I never had the experience of sticking out like that before. It’s not particularly comfortable no matter how nice everyone is. I would consider myself the “diversity” element in the room, and I think everyone else would too. But that doesn’t mean that the concerns are exactly the same – I doubt that a few black people in a music group of the white, western european tradition would worry that they’ll be perceived as coopting an element of white culture instead of just appreciating it.
Being a minority in an enclave doesn’t erase the fact that you still vary from the wider “norm” of the dominant culture. And me being the “diversity” element in an mostly black group does not erase the dominance of my culture and make me just like a black person in an mostly-white group. I think that’s why – right or wrong – people don’t focus as much on getting white representation into an all-black group.
The question is not whether or not you should be forced to mingle with members of other racial/cultural/class groups when you do not share interests and experiences. The question is, why are there so few members of other races/classes/cultures that DO share your interests and experiences?
Preserving the valuable and interesting differences and acknowledging socio-economic realities while at the same time, integrating society and defusing tensions between differing groups – it’s quite a connundrum. Consciously, awkwardly trying to force diversity into all-white groups is just one piece of the puzzle. Hopefully someday we’ll get it right.
posted by Charles Wilson on
O! How I weep for the Log Cabinettes of Detroit! Now will someone pass the dip?
posted by Avee on
And just what does the above comment have to do with the above article?. Hey, everybody, “Charles Wilson” really, really hates gay Republicans . Got that. Now maybe we can get back to the article at hand.
posted by Charles Wilson on
How does it have to do with the article? Let me say it nice and s-l-o-w-l-y, for the humor impaired. The Log Cabinettes are a bunch of affluent white boys, age 25-45, who don’t really feel “comfortable” with the riff-raff.
This reality fairly reeks from Corvino’s article, and now he wants us to draw a larger lesson. Which is fine and dandy, except that I’m not drawing the lesson he wants me to draw. Boo-hoo.
posted by Avee on
Charles Wilson proves my point. I don’t have any idea if Dr. Corvino is a Republican, but I do know that (unlike me) he supports “affirmative action” mandates and opposed the Supreme Ct. ruling that limited raced-based admission policies. As an academic, I rather doubt he is “affluent.” I do know that Charles Wilson hates Republicans, though. And after all, isn’t that all that matters?
posted by kittynboi on
I think Wilson is either being blinded by emotion or is intentionally missing the point. The point of the article, or points, rather, is that you can’t FORCE people to get along, and you can’t force them to like each other. You can’t force diversity.
The reason none of the “riff raff”, as Wilson calls them, were at these gatherings is that Corvino and his associates didn’t personally know many minorities to invite.
posted by Charles Wilson on
Something tells me Corvino will be just fine, the “Tragedy of the Unworthy” in Detroit notwithstanding.
posted by Amicus on
One might expect that there is a greater degree of freedom-of-association, for good OR for ill, at Christmas parties and even in social-networking/support groups.
However, public policy on employment is probably something else. Anyone who tells you that you cannot create a vibrant, effective company that is committed to diversity is wrong. Under almost all circumstance,s people can come to understand what to ‘bring to the job’ and ‘what to leave at home’. And we’re all better off for it, when they do.
posted by Bill Samuels on
I think Corvino is simply making the point that G/Ls, B’s and T’s were all sort of lumped together as sexual minorities for understandable political-power purposes, but that many gays — while being sympathetic — don’t really relate to transgenders (or bi’s for that matter) and vice versa. It’s an artificial grouping that isn’t necessarily reflected in the real world. Certainly no one in any group or minority should be deliberately shunned, but sometimes our paths simply don’t cross. There’s a lot said about transphobic and biphobic gays — whom I believe are in the distinct minority — but not much said about homophobic T’s or B’s. Of course we can’t tar everyone with the same brush; just keep in mind that questioning certain gay/bi/transgender issues (from any segment of the “queer” community) does not necessarily add up to blatant bigotry or make someone an “affluent Republican.”
posted by Karen on
Bill,
I for one have never met a homophobic trannie or one who was ignorant of our issues, while I’ve met many transphobic and trans-ignorant gay people. I don’t doubt that they exist, but I hardly ever see them, even on the intertubes, so that’s probably why we don’t talk much about them.
When it comes to being a “member” of the sexual minority, there are a lot of people who are “fellow members” that I don’t easily relate to.
Gay men, for instance. (I’m female.) Closeted people. Anyone who came out late in life (I started coming out when I was 15). Gay Christians (I do not believe that Jesus fufilled Judaic prophecy, or indeed that said prophecy was real in the first place). Dykes on Bikes (I hate motorcycles.)
But to deny the similarity that brings us under the same umbrella seems pretty naive to me. Sure, our poltical activism “paths” might not always cross – after all, as a lesbian I have a very low risk of contracting HIV. And I have no use for literature and support that pertains to coming out to a spouse. Etc etc. But if I waited until someone had EVERYTHING in common with me before I joined forces with them, I would end up as an activist army of one.
Make fun of academic theorists and their extremist follies all you like, but they’ve got a point about the whole biological sex/psychosocial gender/attraction orientation thing being completely interrelated. It’s kind of impossible to contemplate why someone might react with violence to a gay man without considering the idea of masculinity, and from there you can ALSO see how that person might also react with violence to an apparent male who feels like a woman.
So I find that I am a sexual minority – someone who violates part of that sex/gender/orientation norm in a way that society deems problematic, but that I can find no logical justification for condemning. That’s as wide as I can get the umbrella. It encompasses me, my MTF friend, and that guy who likes too much “girly” stuff but still identifies as male and likes women. And so I join with the community of people who think the world ought to be a safe and free place, even for those of us who do gender “wrong”.
If you want to talk about specific policies and strategies, let’s talk. But if you’re just going to sit there and tell me that the whole political alliance is contrived and artificial – I just don’t understand being that narrow in focus unless you have an actual animus towards trans people, or unless you believe that they are lying or mistaken about their experiences.
posted by The Gay Species on
Social engineering can only engage the social aspects of our lives, not our private aspects.
One of the liberal principles of America’s founding is the “freedom of association.” That freedom, I presume, allows me to choose who to include/exclude in my circle of associations.
Thus, any form of mandating how, with whom, individuals associate must be (i) confined to specific public spheres of social consequence, and (ii) social need not otherwise attained. Affirmative Action is remedial, not indefinite policy, wherein justice requires restitution for centuries of injustice of slavery and half-century of court-sanction segregation. The duration of this remedy seems close to being ended.
Civil society recognize the primary needs of food, clothing, and shelter as necessary for survival, and free public education as necessary for a liberal democracy, and to maximize those minimally-necessary needs, passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, so that no one can be denied employment, housing, public accommodation based on race, creed, national origin, sex. The survival needs of every individual require these Civil Rights. “Sexual orientation” was not quite on everyone’s radar at the time of its passage.
When Gay Liberation advocated amending the 1964 Act to include “sexual orientation” along with other protected classes for ostensibly the very same reasons, the rebuffs came from both left and right ideologues, insisting religious belief trumps an individual’s survival requirements. Freedom of association was often invoked against the proposal. Since then, Democrats have paired the already simple objective into a barebones “ENDA,” applicable to employment only — except religious.
Homophiles would do well to dismiss the “milk-and-honey” “carrot-with-stick” shameless pandering, and insist on the original request: Addition of “sexual orientation.” EQUALITY demands it. And EQUALITY, not religious qualms, is a paramount liberal principle in a liberal democracy.
posted by Samuel Hudson on
I do not for a second buy your rather stereotypical arguments. The challenge of diversity is that it threatens your own privileged perceptions about other people. While everyone has a right to choose who they wish to associate with, that association talks greatly about who they are as a person.
You cannot have the cake and eat it too. You can either practice diversity in your life or not. Just because you are gay, and ask for tolerance from others, doesn?t necessarily mean you are willing to give others the same. Sadly that is the case here.