The Federalist looks at the increasingly uncomfortable amalgamation of LGB and T, by way of an interview with a gay man who posted a change.org petition to “drop the T.” It won’t happen, of course, but the interview raises some interesting points. The petitioner (he asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation from the trans movement) notes, for instance:
To me, the LGB movement, with its celebration of all types of gay men and women, such as bears, leather daddies, drag queens, diesel dykes, lipstick lesbians, etc., has always been about expanding and re-defining concepts of gender; the trans movement, on the other hand, appears to be about re-asserting and codifying traditional concepts of gender.
The initial discussion is about the Stonewall narrative, and interviewer David Marcus asks:
I was at the Stonewall twenty-fifth anniversary march in 1994, and at that time we all thought we had a pretty good idea of what had happened at Stonewall. The Stonewall veterans— mostly gay, white men—were viewed as heroic. In the new version of events, the gay, white men at the riot are presented as weak followers, not primary actors. Why do you think so many established gay outlets have so easily accepted this narrative that echoes some of the worst stereotypes about gay men?
To which the petitioner replies:
I think there’s a general desire to find heroes in the past that aren’t the usual white guy, and I understand that completely, as a gay kid looking to find gay heroes in a heteronormative history myself. But you can’t alter history to make you feel better, and doing so by twisting a narrative so that heroic men become weak, dithering non-actors in an event is disrespectful to them and ultimately to yourself.
More. David Marcus has more to say at The Federalist website, Gay Versus Trans Bar Fight Breaks Out Over ‘Stonewall’:
Consider the accounts of the white, gay men interviewed for an AARP video celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Stonewall. They are quite clear about what led them to riot. It wasn’t the actions of the small number of transvestites that led them to fight back. It was the actions of the police, the frustration of being left behind in a nation that was slowly embracing civil rights. It was the moment when they refused to be cowed by a culture that condemned the very essence of who they were.
Let us be clear that those who accuse “Stonewall,” the movie, of whitewashing and cis-washing the events of that night are calling these men liars.
17 Comments for “Debating the “T””
posted by Jorge on
(from the Change.org petition):
“There are several areas in which the ideology of the trans community is at odds with or actively hostile to that of women and gay men; among the most important are:”
I was going to quote them, but this petition is just so deceptively smarmy shrill and one-sided I just feel dirty doing it. I’ll just post my thoughts.
Harassment of non-conformists happens in every movement, although at least he gives examples.
I’m sympathetic to the “traditional safe spaces based on sex” concern, but I’m left speechless at the “men claiming to be transgender demanding access to bathrooms bit”. In fact that’s what turns me off the most. This isn’t the fake sexual predator slur, it’s almost as if he doesn’t believe transgender people exist. This person can barely seem to write a sentence in which he uses the terms transgender and gender dysphora in ways that are honest and sincere.
That line saying it’s wrong to diagnose gender dysphoric children as transgender at a very young age, and by the way they usually grow up gay is utter silliness. I cannot believe I wasted my valuable computer time reading such stupid, self-serving, change the rules as I go along nonsense.
This guy is a shrill nut. Doesn’t set out to be one, maybe, but he is. Wait for someone else to propose the split.
“Thus far, two of the five organizations to which the petition was addressed (Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and Human Rights Campaign) have responded. Both responses are short, dismissive, and fail to address the concerns of Clayton and the other signatories.”
I strongly disagree. The GLAAD response was direct, to the point, sincere, and directly rebutted one of the petition’s central positions. I didn’t happen to like it. The HRC response was direct, also to the point, and not only clearly expressed a critical counterargument that the petition failed to consider, but also conveyed through a passionate tone and appeals toward empathy how much weight it believes this consideration should be given. I liked it.
The petition is not requesting that its arguments be considered or discussed. It is requesting concrete action. In my view the petition’s shaky reasoning, questionable statistics, and demeaning use of language about transgender persons discredit the sincerity of its stated request for a discussion of the issues and concerns it raises.
“To me, the LGB movement, with its celebration of all types of gay men and women, such as bears, leather daddies, drag queens, diesel dykes, lipstick lesbians, etc., has always been about expanding and re-defining concepts of gender; the trans movement, on the other hand, appears to be about re-asserting and codifying traditional concepts of gender.”
I cannot agree with either statement. They might be the majority trend for each movement, but this guy’s from the wrong generation. In modern times gay has become defined as being about who you’re attracted to–the obsession with genitalia, as Tom has said about other things recently. Expanding and re-defining concepts of gender, sorry but Mr. Moms have done that far more than than all the gay metrosexual deep pockets in Manhattan.
Why am I even wasting my time with this? Is this the next Donald Trump?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Jorge: Why am I even wasting my time with this? Is this the next Donald Trump?
Pretty much, I suspect, although I can’t decide whether this is the new incarnation of “Donald Trump the Birther” or “Donald Trump the Nativist” or “Donald Trump the Egotistical Maniac”.
Stephen: The Federalist looks at the increasingly uncomfortable amalgamation of LGB and T, by way of an interview with a gay man who posted a change.org petition to “drop the T.”
As I see things, “Drop the T” has been for emerging as a homocon talking point for a long time, and has now become a “push” issue among homocons.
The movement toward “Drop the T” probably began with a historical dispute over Stonewall (see, for example, “The Myth of a Transgender Stonewall”, Dale Carpenter, IGF, March 7, 2002) that intensified and became more fractious over the years (see, for example, “The Stonewall Myth”, Stephen Miller, IFG, August 11, 2015).
The historical dispute over Stonewall is of little practical moment (and is something that will be clarified over time as dispassionate and accurate histories are written by historians during the next few decades), but the movement toward “Drop the T” developed further when the “T” turned out to be a “bridge too far” for ENDA (see, for example, “The Transgender Fiasco”, Stephen Miller, IGF, October 4, 2007, “ENDA Now. Transgenders Later.”, Dale Carpenter, IGF, October 11, 2007, and numerous subsequent postings).
And, as I see things, disappointment and anger over the failure of ENDA eventually triggered homocon resentment toward transgenders and the development of a “history” of the LGBT movement that treats transgender people as aggressive interlopers (see, for example, “Gay Marriage Fight a Setback for Transgenders?”, Stephen H. Miller, IGF, August 11, 2010, which concludes “Okay, but who was it that insisted that transgender people be conflated with gays and lesbians under the LGBT rubric, if not transgender activists?“).
Over the last few years, that anger and resentment appears to have led to a more and more homocon commentary about the need to split the “T” off the “LGB”, so that the “LGB” (well, really the “LG”, since the “B” component is rarely mentioned and presents its own problems for homocons) can thrive and prosper now that marriage equality is a fact on the ground.
Whatever the background, anger, resentment, and attempts not to distinguish transgenders so much as to split them off from “LGBT”, seems to be where homocons have landed and are taking a stand. And it seems to be all tied together in an indigestible knot, as Stephen’s full-circle wrap, tying current transgender issues back to resentment over Stonewall history, suggests.
Whatever. I don’t agree with the homocons.
First, I don’t agree that the current dispute over transgenders represents a new development. It seems to me that the LGBT movement has always been a conglomeration of uneasy allies. I am old enough to remember the fighting between gay men and lesbian women in the 1970’s and 1980’s, before that dispute settled down. I am old enough to remember the divisions that developed (and were eventually healed at the cost of many deaths) during the AIDS epidemic. I am old enough to remember attempts to cut out the “B”, on the grounds that bisexuals broke the binary nature of heterosexual/homosexual, challenged the “born that way” meme, and allowed sexual adventurers into “our” movement (see, for example “On “Bisexuality”, Some Truths Must Not Be Spoken”, Stephen H. Miller, IGF, July 12, 2005). Now it is the transgenders who are being held up as goats, but to me that represents nothing new.
Second, I don’t agree with the implicit assumption that the LGBT movement toward “equal means equal” is about “Where’s mine?” and that each of the components of LGBT can or should treat their concerns are the only legitimate concerns for the movement, ending up, eventually, with “Got mine, fuck you!” It seems to me that our has been a movement toward equal treatment under the law, dealing with different issues of the different elements of the conglomeration of uneasy allies as circumstances warrant, but with an overriding focus on “equal means equal”. It is, after all, in “equal means equal” that we have our moral claim on the American people (appealing to the innate sense American sense of “fair treatment”) and it is “equal means equal” that we find common ground with other movements (e.g. the African-American civil rights movement, the “women’s rights” movement, and so on). “Where’s mine?” just doesn’t cut it.
Third, I don’t agree that our goal is to accommodate social conservatives (religious conservatives in particular), for the sake of achieving the “higher” goals (e.g. tax cuts, business deregulation, elimination of social security and medicare) espoused by the now defunct GOProud, which was the undisputed voice of the homocon movement within the Republican Party for a number of years. It seems to me that our focus should be on “equal means equal” and that we should never lose sight of, or compromise on, that goal, whatever our tactical concerns of the moment. I recognize the value of arguments that appeal to conservatives (e.g. the argument put forth a decade ago that marriage equality would have the desirable effect of lessening sexual promiscuity among gay men over time) but I don’t think that we should shape our goals around social conservative concerns or philosophies. I certainly don’t think that we should compromise on “equal means equal” for the sake of peace (as in the “civil unions compromise” proposed by Jon Rauch and David Blankenhorn a few years ago).
Fourth, I agree with those who argue that efforts to accommodate religious conservatives are, in large part anyway, doomed to failure because religious conservatives are not interested in reaching a reasonable accommodation. All of the LGBT populations, in ways that are common and in ways that are distinct to each population, challenge the “Bible Christian” view of God and the world, presenting direct challenges to traditional gender roles, the idea of anatomy as determinative, traditional sexual norms, and the theological underpinning of law, to name a few of the issues. The most recent Christian frenzy over End Times (see, for example, Michele Bachmann’s latest rants, or Franklin Graham’s recent pronouncements) is largely fueled by conservative Christian attempts to make sense of the advance of “equal means equal” within a fundamentalist Biblical worldview. To hard core conservative Christians, any compromise with “equal means equal” is an unacceptable cooperating with Satanic power.
Fifth, the tacit refusal to recognize transgender people as other than pretenders (consider, for example, “a man who says he’s a woman on the inside” and “boys who identify as girls” from the “Backlash in Houston” thread, or “men claiming to be transgender demanding access to bathrooms bit”” from this thread) strikes me as going to the heart of homocon attitudes toward transgender people, even if the homocons do not push the ugly lies about transgenders that are pushed by conservative Christians. If homocons are to be taken seriously in the discussion about transgenders, it seems to me that homocons must take transgender people more seriously, admitting, at a minimum, that transgender people do exist and are as real as rock.
Stephen: “It [Drop the “T”] won’t happen, of course …
That’s right. It won’t. And it shouldn’t.
posted by Jorge on
Pretty much, I suspect, although I can’t decide whether this is the new incarnation of “Donald Trump the Birther” or “Donald Trump the Nativist” or “Donald Trump the Egotistical Maniac”.
I forgot about all that! Well, maybe this one won’t be so lucky.
And, as I see things, disappointment and anger over the failure of ENDA eventually triggered homocon resentment toward transgenders and the development of a “history” of the LGBT movement that treats transgender people as aggressive interlopers (see, for example, “Gay Marriage Fight a Setback for Transgenders?”, Stephen H. Miller, IGF, August 11, 2010, which concludes “Okay, but who was it that insisted that transgender people be conflated with gays and lesbians under the LGBT rubric, if not transgender activists?“).
I realize the gay community is heavily skewed progressive, but using the word conservative to describe someone who is angry about ENDA failing strikes me as strange. Most conservative intellectuals are not passionate about anti-discrimination laws, usually that would require a liberal Republican type. I think we’re looking at a gay moderate phenomenon.
As gays become more socially accepted, the ability of major GLBT rights organizations to represent the gay community in both its diverse and skewed aspects will weaken. But that’s just the law of averages–they’re currently very good at it.
First, I don’t agree that the current dispute over transgenders represents a new development. It seems to me that the LGBT movement has always been a conglomeration of uneasy allies…
Right.
Second, I don’t agree with the implicit assumption that the LGBT movement toward “equal means equal” is about “Where’s mine?”
I have a longstanding disagreement with you on that one, so I’ll have to pass.
. . . but I don’t think that we should shape our goals around social conservative concerns or philosophies.
I do, but I would be very distressed if the movement as a whole failed to put the progressive concerns and philosophies of its majority first.
If homocons are to be taken seriously in the discussion about transgenders, it seems to me that homocons must take transgender people more seriously, admitting, at a minimum, that transgender people do exist and are as real as rock.
That would logically require a serious admission that gay people exist. Which is something that I choose to doubt at least twice a year.
posted by Kosh III on
Tom covered it quite well. I’d only add:
“efforts to accommodate religious conservatives are, in large part anyway, doomed to failure because religious conservatives are not interested in reaching a reasonable accommodation.”
They are interested in destroying us.
I’m old enough to remember Anita Bryant and the “Kill a Queer for Christ” slogan. Or Jerry Falwell opining that “AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Or Thomas Sowell referring to us as “human rubbish.”
posted by Houndentenor on
And here we go with yet another false binary. Either we must embrace the gender norms of the second half of the 20th century or reject them outright? What if we take what we find useful and reject the rest and let others do the same? Also incomprehensible is that so many think that post-war gender roles are what always existed before that time. It’s simply not true, especially if we look at world history.
At the core of this “drop the T” bs is the idea that if we throw trans people under the bus then the religious right will drop their opposition to gay rights. I see no evidence of that. Is there an offer on the table to pass a gay rights bill in Congress if we exclude trans people? Of course not. So we’re supposed to sell out trans people without even one piece of silver much less 30? Why on earth would we even consider such a thing?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Another in a string of “we really are relevant! damn it!” from the homocons… and it’s hilarious how they’re now dragging out a non-inclusive ENDA’s failure to prove their butt-hurt bonafides on legislation that Stephen & other homocons have been lukewarm at best if not hostile towards at worst.
It’s not the T’s that are slowing the LGBT community’s progress towards “equal means equal” it’s the #TCOT’s.
posted by More on Campus Anti-Speech Activism - IGF Culture Watch on
[…] I raised the “Stonewall” movie fracas in the post below on transgender activism, I’m bumping up the following, which I had added to an earlier post […]
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I doubt that the Federal civil rights legislation covering just sexual orientation or sexual orientation and gender identity has much of a chance of passing…Even if this bill only dealt with say, employment law.
1. Disputes about the history of the Stonewall Inn riots have been ongoing for quite some time, and I doubt that the disputes — academic and otherwise — are going to go away any time soon, no matter how good or bad a movie happens to be.
2. You do not have to look far in order to find University students — of all sorts of backgrounds and beliefs — who seem to lack tact, politeness, civility or any sense of how to take part in a serious debate.
3. I can appreciate the need to (sometimes) take baby steps and be strategic about civil right legislation. However, when people say that, “We need more time on the gender identity thing, lets set that aside and only deal with sexual orientation”, I rarely see them demonstrating a sincere interest in getting to a point where they are ready (or to help those that need to be ready).
The situation for many gay people in the American South and Midwest (particularly the more rural Midwest) , is often a very different world. A place where homophobia ain’t just a minor dispute over coffee, and being honest — to say nothing of being an activist — can make it hard to live/work.
posted by Jim Michaud on
Right you are Tom J. on that last point. But Stephen and other homocons don’t know/don’t care about those icky red areas. They’re safely nestled in their comfy blue areas They’ve got their protections so to hell with anyone else. I’ve checked where lots of these homocons say they live. Blue areas all, not a small conservative town or rural area in the bunch. Must be nice.
posted by Lori Heine on
To me, the notion of throwing ANYBODY in the community under the bus is a betrayal of principle. We’ve all been tossed under there at one point or another. It doesn’t feel too good, being under those wheels.
posted by Mark F. on
Well, let me ask you a question. Suppose the Mattachine Society had lobbied Democrats to include sexual orientation in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Suppose they were told that they couldn’t do that because it wouldn’t pass. Therefore, it would have been better that the bill fail rather than we let the Democrats throw under the bus, right?
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
I still unclear what bathroom the anti-WAR crowd wants transgender people to use? If they can only go to the bathroom at their own residence, then you pretty much precluded most legit employment opportunities (which, would mean more folks on public assistance)
If you say that “Bob” should only use the men’s room, no matter his appearance or clothing or the fact that he had or will have sex change surgery, you need to ensure that Bob can safely use said men’s room, even through he looks and lives like a woman.
posted by Jorge on
Personally I would have liked to see the bathroom question go the way of reasonable accommodations, where you have the right to request a workable accommodation but once given one you have to take it or leave it, but I’m convinced there are too many places that’s unworkable and unethical. The first place you hear problems about sex role assignment is in prisons and other involuntary settings, the kind of places that are the last to be reformed (and other messed up stuff, too). With other places people are saying we’ll have to transition to unisex bathrooms soon. As undue burdens go, that’s a harmless one in comparison.
posted by Jorge on
Like I say, the gay (lesbian, bisexual, transgender) rights movement is progressive for a reason.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
Also am I the only person who has been to a big music festival or performance, where everyone uses the men’s or women’s facility, because one of the facilities has got an out of order sign?
Granted, this may be why the portable toilets are scattered around a big event like this…but do people really think about what they say?
posted by JohnInCA on
“[…] but do people really think about what they say?”
Generally speaking, no. What are you, some kind of optimistic hippy?
To be clear: I love optimists, they’re fun to hang out with sometimes. Heck, I even married one! But they also get disappointed and let-down a lot more often the pessimists. The hubby is more easily frustrated and angered by people because he expects and hopes for better from them, while when I see them acting shitty I just go “ho hum, Tuesday again.”
So while I support the right of Optimists to choose their deviant and reality-defying lifestyle, I don’t think I’ll ever convert.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
um, no. In 1994, their were certainly debates about the history behind the Stonewall Inn riots.
The fact that some peopled liked simplifed “version 1” of the Stonewall Inn history, dont make it true.
So, this argument that Stephen makes about how critics are running around calling people liars, is frankly b.s.
Their has always been quite a bit of debate about what “really happened”, and lots of people looking for simple answers or the idea that ’69 rioters were really time travllers from 1994 or 2015, who were really Log Cabin Republicans or Stonewall Democrats.