On The Proposal To Replace LGBT With “Gender And Sexual Diversities” (GSD)

2 03 2013

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have made a great deal of progress toward gaining equal status and rights in the US, particularly within the past decade.  But, on the eve of the US Supreme Court’s consideration of same-gender marriage, we find ourselves still battling rigid stereotypes and prejudice.

Arguments against equal protections for transgender people continue to reduce them to their bodies and/or their sexualities, claiming their presence poses a risk of sexual violence for cisgender people.  Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people continue to be depicted as a threat to children and families, often outright accused of sexual deviance, including pedophilia, bestiality, and sexual addiction.  A great deal of the efforts to challenge anti-LGBT prejudice, discrimination, and violence entails battling these myths and stereotypes, and promoting an image of LGBT people as mere humans.

The Importance Of Self-Definition

The extent to which LGBT people are oppressed in the US can be gleaned by the power that heterosexual and cisgender people hold to name, recognize, represent, and include LGBT people.  As such, there are efforts by LGBT activists and advocates to address each of these elements of inequality: from challenging the exclusion of LGBT people from important social institutions, to challenging the use of “gay” as an insult; from promoting greater (positive) visibility of LGBT people in the media, to advocating for greater attention to sexual identity, and gender identity and expression in politics.

One aspect of LGBT empowerment, then, is obtaining the power to name oneself, and to be visible, represented, and included.  Sociologist Patricia Hill Collins talks about the importance of self-definition for Black women’s empowerment in her scholarship on black feminist theory:

[S]elf-definition offers a powerful challenge to the externally defined, controlling images of African-American women.  Replacing negative images with positive ones can be equally problematic if the function of stereotypes as controlling images remains unrecognized…The insistence on Black women’s self-definitions reframes the entire dialogue from one of protesting the technical accuracy of an image…to one stressing the power dynamics underlying the very process of definition itself…By insisting on self-definition, Black women question not only what has been said about African-American women but the credibility and the intentions of those possessing the power to define.  When Black women define ourselves, we clearly reject the assumption that those in positions granting authority to interpret our reality are entitled to do so.  Regardless of the actual content of Black women’s self-definitions, the act of insisting on Black female self-definition validates Black women’s power as human subjects (pg. 114).

Gender And Sexual Diversities

The successful recognition of LGBT people as just that — LGBT — has only recently been achieved in general US discourse about sexuality and gender identity and expression.  And, by no means has the acronym gained complete use over less inclusive terms: “gays and lesbians,” “homosexuals,” “gay people,” “transsexuals,” and so forth.

Of course, the acronym LGBT is not entirely exhaustive in its inclusion of all sexual and gender minorities.  Queer is sometimes included, and the ‘T’ arguably includes all trans* people (e.g., transgender, gender non-conforming, transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, etc.); and, some use the longer LGBTQQIA to include queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual identified people.  Still, others remain unnamed, though assumed.

To reflect this vast diversity in sexual identity, gender identity, and gender expression, a London-based therapy group for sexual and gender minorities, Pink Therapy, has proposed the term “gender and sexual diversities” (GSD).  Initially, I would take no issue with a broader, more inclusive term to speak about such diversity.  But, the proposal to replace LGBT with GSD — which, ironically, sounds like a mental illness (like PTSD) — put me on the defensive.  I thought, “who are these people to make such a proposal?”

As I watched the interview to hear more about their proposed GSD umbrella term, I became more concerned about their intentions, and how their suggestion is given legitimate consideration — even a poll at the bottom of the HuffingtonPost Gay Voices article on the proposed name-change.

PollI agree that LGBT is not inclusive enough.  But, the tired joke about the “alphabet soup” to name every gender and sexual identity is where we land when trying to move beyond exclusivity.

But, within their explanation, I noticed that their vision was broader even than sexual and gender minorities; in fact, their initial proposal of “Gender and Sexual Minorities” (GSM) was shot down because some they include are not necessarily minorities in the same sense that LGBT individuals are.  In particular, the therapists name asexuals, members of kink and BDSM communities, and those in non-traditional relationships (e.g., swingers, those in polyamorous relationships) as individuals to be included in the broader “GSD” label.

To include swingers, who are largely conservative middle-class white heterosexual married couples, as well as similarly privileged people who are polyamorous or into kink or BDSM alongside sexual and gender minorities moves the discussion beyond the denial of rights and protections and exposure to prejudice, discrimination, and violence.

Self-Definition

Indeed, the sexual practices and relationship structures of cisgender heterosexuals who engage in swinging, kink, or who are poly are stigmatized.  But, this is a different matter than the stigmatization LGBT and queer people face because of their sexual and/or gender identities — who they are, not merely what they do.

At a minimum, I am suspicious of this proposal.  LGBT people across the US are being asked to consider adopting the name “GSD” following the proposal of a small group of therapist in London that was elevated via HuffingtonPost.  How did these people even pique the interest of the online newspaper?  Just who are these people to come along with such a major proposal?

But, I think it is safe to say that I oppose this change for three reasons.  First, it is proposed by some external source, rather as an act of self-definition.  Second, likely related to the first, they advocate to include privileged people in our minority community.  It is not for lack of sympathy or even awareness of the invisibility and stigmatization that poly, kinky, and swinging folks experience; rather, these are matters distinct from the marginalized status of LGBT and queer people.  Third, also related to the first, is that the term seems silly as a name for a group.  For example, Black people, whether self-identified as “Black,” “African-American,” “Caribbean Black,” and so on, do not identify as “racial diversity” or “diversities”; even racial and ethnic minorities, collectively as “people of color,” do not use such a label.

I ask, before this proposal goes any further, why?  With such effort that has gone into recognition as LGBT communities, why abruptly shift to a new label that would include individuals who are not gender and/or sexual minorities?

A Note About Boundary Work

I know that I am walking the fine line of boundary work — that is, drawing the boundaries of who is included in LGBT and who is not.  Like every group, whether privileged or oppressed, we have had a long history of drawing and redrawing the bounds of LGBT.  Even today, bisexual and trans* people must ask why ‘B’ and ‘T’ are often reflected only in name.

But, I stress here that this proposal instigates these questions.  I am sure that I am not alone in having the knee-jerk reaction to become defensive at the proposed inclusion of individuals who are not socially and politically marginalized in society.  I also emphasize that we question who determines those boundaries.  What authority do these two therapists have to rename an entire segment of the population?  Who grants that authority, and how is it reinforced?  These questions are at the core of Collins’s discussion of self-definition: interrogating who has the power to define us, if not ourselves, and why.

I recognize and celebrate the great complexity and diversity of genders and sexualities.  But, we must hone the power to name ourselves for ourselves as a part of our path to true liberation.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, America, Asexuals, Attitudes, BDSM, Biphobia, Black Feminism, Black Women, Bodies, Boundary Work, Cisgender People, Diversity, Equality, Exclusion, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Heterosexuals, Homophobia, Identity, Inclusivity, Inequality, Injustice, Intersexed, Invisibility, Justice, Kink, Lesbians, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, LGBT Rights, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Media, Minorities, Moral Panics, Oppression, Polyamory, Power, Prejudice, Pride, Progress, Queer, Relationships, Rights, Self-Definition, Sex, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Institutions, Sociology, Stereotypes, Stigma, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Visibility, Women of Color

In Defense Of Femininities — All Of Them

1 03 2013

Happy Women’s, Womyn’s, Womanist Herstory Month!  Yep, it is March already.  A time the US has set aside for obligatory celebration of girls and women and their contributions to the world.  Sadly, there is a sense of obligation, with the whisperings of “do we still need this?”

Comprehensive Gender Equality

Yes, we do still need these 31 days — barely 10 percent of the entire year — to reflect on girls, women, feminism, sexism and patriarchy, and gender.  By no means have we achieved gender equality.  And, we are overdue for broadening our vision of gender and equality.

Some time ago, I blogged about the narrow definition of “gender equality.”  In this limited, traditional sense, we are referring to the the equal status and treatment of women and men, still recognized by their gender and presumed sex.  This is certainly the dominant vision of mainstream feminism, or was at least in the days of second wave feminism.

There are at least three aspects of gender inequality that remain in this limited view of gender and gender equality.  First, this vision reinforces the treatment of “woman” as a singular status and “women” as a monolithic group.  The unique experiences and needs of women who are also of color, poor, disabled, lesbian, bisexual, queer, older, immigrant, and so on are overlooked.  Second, this focus fails to address the marginalization of transwomen, and transgender and gender non-conforming people in general.  Finally, while aiming to free women from oppression, certain gender identities and expressions — namely femininities — remain stigmatized and invisible.

Gender Diversity

There is a great deal of gender diversity that is too often overlooked within our society that continues to treat sex and gender as binaries: females and males, women and men.

Women, as a group, come from diverse backgrounds: race, ethnicity, social class, sexual identity, nativity, body size and shape, religion, region, and ability.  It is unsurprising, then, that various branches of feminism — or, more accurately, various feminisms — emerged to counter the exclusive focus of mainstream (second wave) feminism to the lives of US-born white middle-class heterosexual cisgender women.  Some of the prominent feminisms in both activism and academia include Black feminism, Womanism, Chicana feminism, multiracial feminism, Third World feminism, lesbian feminism, and working-class feminism.  Today, feminist advocacy and organizations are now more inclusive, but there is still a strong tendency to slip into “single issue” politics.

Related to this diversity among women is the variation within the category of “woman.”  Just as thinking of gender in binary terms, women and men, a singular view of women misses the existence of trans* and gender non-conforming people, particularly transwomen.  Unfortunately, feminist advocacy and organizations have even excluded transwomen in the past, and many wrestle today with deciding how far their inclusivity should extend (e.g., should women’s organizations serve transmen?).

Beyond diversity in terms of gender identity is the recognition of diverse gender expressions.  In reality, there is no universal femininity.  Rather, there are multiple femininities.  Because of the conflation of sex and gender, we tend to assume that femininity = woman; so the reality that femininity can be expressed through any body, regardless of sex and gender identity, is actively resisted and suppressed.  This means we also overlook the hierarchy of femininities, wherein hyperfemininity in female-bodied individuals is rewarded and valued over other expressions of femininity and its expression in other bodies.

Just to make sure the above discussion is clear, I stress that there is a great deal of gender diversity that is too often ignored or erased.  “Woman” does not imply white, US-born, able-bodied, heterosexual (or even sexual), cisgender, feminine, middle-class, Christian, and thin.  There is no singular status or identity of woman.  As a consequence of overlooking this gender diversity, we also miss the inequality that persists among women and among femininities.

In Defense Of Femininities

Despite the many gains that (cis)women have made, and increasing attention to the lives of transwomen, femininity itself remains stigmatized and devalued.  In fact, I would argue that some of the gains made toward gender equality have come at the expense of femininity.  Indeed, early on, some feminists expressed concern that the elevation of women’s status to that of men’s would largely men that women become men.  You can join the old boys club on the condition that you become a boy.

My discipline (sociology) recently tipped over the threshold of gender parity to become a predominantly-female field.  Though the “glass ceiling” has been cracked, if not completely shattered, in some of the field’s top-departments and leadership positions, feminist sociologists continue to struggle to gain legitimacy in mainstream sociology.

Further, we continue to prioritize and reward masculine (or even masculinist) presentations of self.  On two occasions, I witnessed a woman professor scold women students (in front of a mixed-audience) for appearing to lack confidence and aggressiveness: “don’t do that, that’s girly!”  I, too, was discouraged by a (man) professor from being a “shy guy” during an upcoming talk, which, upon comparing notes with another student, realized was the softened version of “man up!”  (I suppose I was assumed too sensitive or critical for the more direct assault on my gendered presentation of self.)

These interpersonal constraints are compounded by those at the institutional level.  In particular, academic institutions continue to evaluate scholars, particularly for tenure, using standards of the days where (white) male scholars had stay-at-home wives to take care of house and home.  Women who become parents face great professional costs, while women who forgo parenthood are rewarded.  Of course, an ironic twist to this aspect of sexism is that fathers receive a slight boost.

Liberating Femininities

As an optimist, I see liberating girls, women, as well as femininity as beneficial to all members of society, no matter their sex, gender identity, and gender expression.  As a critical scholar, I see this liberation as inherently tied to the liberation of all oppressed groups. Sexism is linked to transphobia is linked to heterosexism is linked to classism is linked to racism is linked to xenophobia is linked to ableism is linked to ageism and so on.

For example, two groups of oppressed men — Black men and trans, bisexual, and gay men — stand to benefit from the liberation of femininity.  Just as a hierarchy exists for femininities, one exists for the diverse expressions of masculinity, with that of US-born white middle-class able-bodied heterosexual men as the most valued.  Thus, Black masculinity and queer masculinity are devalued, stereotyped, and simultaneously threatened and treated as a threat.  As a result, many queer and Black men devalue femininity in society and particularly among themselves.  (Some rationalize this by asking, “why would you want to be further stigmatized?”)  True racial and sexual equality cannot exist if these men’s gender expressions remain constrained and policed.

It is time, then, to update our feminist vision of the future.  Feminism cannot be limited to the goal of liberating (a “narrow” category of) women.  We must liberate all women, regardless of their sex assigned at birth, race, age, ethnicity, ability, nativity, religion, body size and shape, and social class.  And, we must liberate all expressions of gender, particularly femininities.  For women will never be truly free in a society that oppresses femininity.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Ability, Academia, Activism, Age, Allies, America, Anti-Sexism, Assimilation, Attitudes, Black Communities, Black Men, Black People, Black Women, Bodies, Cisgender People, Class, Classism, Discrimination, Education, Equality, Ethnicity, Faculty, Feminism, Gay Men, GBT Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Heterosexism, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, Higher Education, History, Homophobia, Inequality, Injustice, Institutional Change, Institutional Discrimination, Institutional Sexism, Interpersonal Discrimination, Interpersonal Sexism, Intersectionality, Invisibility, Irony, Justice, Latina/o People, LBT Women, Lesbians, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Me, Men, Middle-Class, Oppression, People of Color, Prejudice, Progress, Protests, Queer, Race, Racism, Religion, Secondary Marginalization, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Movements, Society, Stereotypes, Stigma, Structural Sexism, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, White People, Women, Women of Color

“Stop-And-Frisk”: Legalized Racist, Homophobic, And Transphobic Discrimination

10 01 2013

New York City’s unpopular, but supposedly “effective” crime-reducing program, “Stop, Question, and Frisk” or (“Stop-and-Frisk” for short), was ruled unconstitutional on Tuesday.  The program entails the following: “a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.”

The judge, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that NYC police officers were systematically stopping people with little cause for suspicion.  (In this particular case, police officers were stopping individuals thought to be trespassing on a Bronx apartment complex property.)  In reviewing police training, she further noted that this evidence “strengthens the conclusion that the N.Y.P.D.’s inaccurate training has taught officers the following lesson: Stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later.”

“Because any member of the public could conceivably find herself outside a TAP building in the Bronx, the public at large has a liberty and dignity interest in bringing an end to the practice of unconstitutional stops at issue in this case,” the judge wrote.

In a way, this is exactly what NYC major Michael Bloomberg and other advocates of the “stop-and-frisk” program call for.  In exchange for the universal possibility of being stopped by a police officer, residents of NYC see a significant reduction in crime and gun possession.  While there have been notable declines in the crime rate (but few seizures of guns), many have argued that this purported exchange is not enjoyed universally.  Rather, an overwhelming majority of those stopped by police over the past two years were Black and Latino men.  Judge Scheindlin took note of one role of race (and racism) in her decision:

As a person exits a building, the ruling said, “the police suddenly materialize, stop the person, demand identification, and question the person about where he or she is coming from and what he or she is doing.”

The decision continued: “Attempts at explanation are met with hostility; especially if the person is a young black man, he is frisked, which often involves an invasive search of his pockets; in some cases the officers then detain the person in a police van.”

Legalized Racism

Many civil rights and anti-racist activists have criticized the “stop-and-frisk” program due to the overrepresentation of men of color in police stops.  Indeed, in practice, the program is a form of institutional discrimination — in this case, as disparate impact discrimination.  That is, while the program does not target a particular disadvantaged group — men of color — by design, it does, in practice, disproportionately burden them.

Typically, disparate impact discrimination is deemed otherwise innocent in terms of intention or bias; these are merely programs or policies that have been unfair in practice.  Yet “stop-and-frisk” actually operates as a legal door for racial profiling by both those unintentionally and those intentionally targeting Black and Latino men.  Some say the racial and ethnic imbalance is merely a product of geography: greater surveillance of predominantly black and brown areas of the city (this, of course, is problematic, too!).  In light of stories of being stopped many times in one’s life, others suggest the “stop-and-frisk” program legally allows police to use one’s blackness/brownness as suspect.  “You’re Black/Latino, so you must be up to no good!”

Even if police stops were equally burdensome for every racial group (and police were evenly hostile to “suspicious” people), the experience of being stopped, questioned, and searched by police is fundamentally racialized.  Given the history of racism, including racist violence and harassment by police or by others yet ignored by police, no white person can ever fully experience the feelings of anger, humiliation, and powerlessness that follow being targeted by police as a person of color.

Further, programs like this one, Arizona’s “show-me-your-papers” law that unfairly targets Latina/o people, among others are just the tip of the racist iceberg of the US criminal justice system.  From interaction with the police, to arrest, to court, to prison, racial inequality exists at every step and every facet of law enforcement and criminal justice.  Unfortunately, the narrow view of the law cannot handle the reality that racism shapes the core and operation of every social system and institution, including law enforcement.

Legalized Homophobia And Transphobia

It may have come as a surprise to some that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups joined the chorus of anti-racist and civil rights organizations that rallied against the “stop-and-frisk” program.  Beyond advocating for racial equality, these groups took issue with the disproportionate number of LGBT people of color who have been stopped by police.  Often, young Black and Latino LGBT people are stopped as suspects for sexual crimes (e.g., public sex, sex work).  In these stops, many are sexually harassed or assaulted by police.

Parallel to blackness and brownness as suspect, LGBT people are legally targeted through the “stop-and-frisk” program often because of their gender expression.  LGBT people, especially transgender and gender non-conforming people, are deemed suspicious because their “appearance transgresses gender norms embraced by mainstream society.”  It turns out that stops based on suspicion of sexual crimes has already been deemed illegal, again by the same judge:

In 2010, in a decision dripping with outrage, US District Judge Shira Scheindlin held New York City in contempt for failing to end enforcement of loitering laws held unconstitutional decades before. One of the laws at issue was the “loitering for sex” statute that Lambda Legal had succeeded in getting struck down in 1983 by New York’s highest court, shortly after it threw out the state’s sodomy law.

“The human toll, of course, has been borne by the tens of thousands of individuals who have, at once, had their constitutional rights violated and been swept into the penal system,” Scheindlin wrote. “More disturbing still, it appears that the laws — which target panhandling, remaining in a bus or train station, and ‘cruising’ for sex — have been enforced particularly against the poor and gay men.”

Missing The Complex Reality Of Discrimination Today

The above discussion points to the inability for the law, in its present state, to fully appreciate the complex reality of discrimination today.  One challenge is to prove that a law or program — instances of institutional discrimination — disproportionately affect a particular group (without just cause).  This sidesteps the matter of proving biased or prejudiced intentions, a matter central to cases of unfair treatment; however, the narrow view of the law fails to account for the systemic, wide-reaching influence of systems of oppression such as racism, homophobia, and transphobia.  Indeed, it can be argued that discrimination within one institution (e.g., criminal justice) mutually reinforces discrimination in other systems (e.g., education).  The true challenge, then, is proving when discrimination is not at play, at least indirectly.

The other important matter that is systematically overlooked is the simultaneous, interconnected operation of multiple systems of oppression.  “Stop-and-frisk” reflects the practice of both racism and homophobia/transphobia by police and the criminal justice system.  What, on the surface, appears to be a matter of racial inequality has turned out to disproportionately affect Black and Latina/o queer people.  Another instance of legalized discrimination, the US military’s “Don’ Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, had its greatest effect on Black women.  And, given the greater number of Black same-gender couples who have children, Black LGBT people hold a greater share of the burden created by laws that prohibit or hinder same-gender marriage and adoption.

Of course, greater attention should be paid to the reality that some people are victimized by multiple forms of discrimination (e.g., racist and sexist discrimination).  Yet, discrimination cases that pursue such claims are ultimately less successful in court, probably because the court is unable to apprehend this level of complexity.

The days of explicit, unapologetic racist discrimination are (mostly) gone, and great progress has been made toward equality for LGBT people.  Yet, the task remains to better understand prejudice and discrimination in the new millennium.  There is a great deal of complexity to discrimination that we consistently miss when attending to the discriminatory actions of a few bigoted apples.  We will never achieve full equality, whether in opportunities or outcomes, without an appropriately comprehensive understanding of what discrimination is, how it operates, and how to prevent it.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, America, Biphobia, Black Communities, Black Men, Black People, Bodies, Civil Rights, Coalitions, Crime, Criminal Justice, Discrimination, Equality, Ethnicity, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Government, Homophobia, Inequality, Injustice, Justice, Latina/o People, Law, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, LGBT Youth, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Men, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Poverty, Prejudice, Queer, Queer People of Color, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Sex, Sex Work, Sexual Assault, Sexual Harassment, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Stereotypes, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Transphobia, Youth

11/20 Is International Transgender Day Of Remembrance

20 11 2012

International Transgender Day of Remembrance 2012

Today is celebrated as International Transgender Day of Remembrance.  The day serves to honor the lives of transgender and gender non-conforming who have been attacked or killed because of their gender identity or expression.  Despite the growing visibility of trans communities and advancements of legal protections for trans people, hate-filled violence targeted against trans individuals persists worldwide.  In fact, Vice President Joe Biden has called fighting for trans rights is the “civil rights issue of our time.“

At a minimum, I encourage us all to educate ourselves about the lives, experiences, and well-being of trans people — especially those of us who are cisgender (i.e., non-transgender).  Here are a few helpful posts from Kinsey Confidential, the blog I contribute to for the Kinsey Institute, and other useful articles:

It is my hope that this day of remembrance those who have been killed ultimately shifts to a day of celebrating life, prosperity, and pride.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Discrimination, Equality, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Hate Crimes, Health, Heterosexuals, Inequality, Injustice, Intersectionality, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT Communities, LGBT Health, LGBT People, Oppression, Prejudice, Pride, Queer People of Color, Race, Sexuality, Social Change, Society, Transgender, Transpeople of Color, Transphobia, Violence

Gender Equality … Sort Of

18 12 2011

I cringe when I hear the suggestion that gender equality has been achieved, or that we are now living in a post-gender society, or something of the sort that suggests that women now occupy an equal status to men.  But, I do acknowledge that major gains have been achieved for women, inching further away from an exclusively subordinate status and, sometimes, closer to an equal status to that of men.  (I do not, however, buy arguments that men are now a disadvantaged, subordinated group, even if women numerically outnumber men in some contexts, like college.)

Gender Equality For Which Women?

If we learn only one thing from Black and multicultural feminism, third world feminism, lesbian feminism, working-class feminism, and other strands of feminism that challenge the narrow perspective and actions of mainstream (white, heterosexual, Western, middle-class) feminism, it is that the category of “woman” does not consist of one universal set of experiences, needs, and interests.  Acknowledging this point, I regularly correct people who suggest that women began entering the labor force in the 1960s and 1970s.  Rather, white heterosexual middle-class women in the West were beginning to enter the labor force upon the weakening of the societal norm that a woman’s place is in the home.  Women of various disadvantaged backgrounds would have experienced the freedom to stay home as a luxury, for they were/are forced, either due to enslavement in our ugly historical past or poverty in our ugly contemporary present, to work to support themselves and their families.

As such, it is crucial that we attend to whether all women have achieved equal status in society, or at least inched closer to it.  In many ways, gains toward gender equality are realized for the relatively privileged class of women but not others; worse, sometimes those gains are experienced at the expense of disadvantaged classes of women.  (Who do you think is taking on housekeeping and childcare responsibilities while white middle-class women are off working full-time jobs when they aren’t doing it themselves?)

Equality For Two

By virtue of their gender identity and expression, transgender and gender non-conforming people are not treated as equals in our society.  Rather, transphobic people, groups, and institutions attack, exclude, and belittle transpeople in ways that suggest more than a subordinate status — their humanness itself is challenged.  This is seen in the resistance to acknowledging individuals who occupy spaces outside of the female-male/woman-man sex/gender binaries, resisting individuals’ right to define their own gender identity and expression, and, in more subtle ways, like referring to transpeople as “it,” as if they are inanimate objects.

Liberating Gendered People, But Not Gender

Yes, gains have been made for women and, to a lesser extent, transgender and gender non-conforming people.  But, what we usually miss in our assessment of the presence or absence of gender equality (besides thinking of equality/inequality in binary terms) is whether all components of gender have moved toward equality.  There are a number of dimensions of gender: gendered people, sexed people, gender identity, gender expression, among others that I likely have missed here.  We typically focus on the full and equal inclusion of gendered people.  For example, we attend to whether equal access exists for women and men in education and the labor market, and whether household labor is equally divided between female and male partners in heterosexual couples.  (Again, note that transpeople are regularly excluded from these assessments, seen instead as a special case or even a matter of sexuality rather than gender.)  Now that we think about gender instead of sex, we seem to fail ask about the inclusion and treatment of particular sexed people.  One need only to look at the treatment of intersexed people to see evidence of this reality.

Finally, what I find most ironic about traditional assessments of gender equality is that we fail to ask about individuals’ freedom of gender expression.  To be frank, it appears that women are increasingly welcomed in traditionally male-dominated spaces if they become men — not to literally transition their sex to become males and gender to become men, but to become masculine.  Women are freer today to express themselves in masculine ways (e.g., wearing suits, jeans); however, men are not substantially freer today to express themselves in feminine ways.  In fact, femininity is devalued, even at times when women themselves are not.  The policing of gender is sometimes seen in the most surprising places: the “no femmes” and cultural femmephobia seen in gay male spaces, women criticizing other women for being too feminine or “girly” especially in male-dominated space, men snapping at other men to “man up,” and so forth.  Further, society still expects gender conformity.  This means for women, in particular, the double bind of needing to behave like men to get ahead in life, but the expectation to be women at the end of the day to avoid any challenges to their woman-ness and sexual orientation.

What’s My Point?

My overarching point is that we must acknowledge the complexity of gender equality and gender inequality to comprehensively assess whether they are reflected in society today.  This means fully understanding the complexity of gender itself: there is no universal category of “woman,” nor are humans limited to the two gender categories of women and men.  We must acknowledge the experiences, needs, and interests of transgender and gender non-conforming people, as well as women of various racial, ethnic, class, sexuality, nationality, ability, and religious backgrounds to begin to assess equity.  We must also acknowledge that there is no universal category of “man,” a point that reflects that men of disadvantaged backgrounds do not fully enjoy the privileged status as men.  Finally, we cannot miss the absence of full liberty to express one’s gender freely without risk of harm or consequence.  For to see women and transpeople equally valued while femininity and gender non-conformity are devalued is only halfway to equality.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, Bodies, Civil Rights, College, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Inequality, Intersectionality, Intersexed, LGBT People, Progress, Queer, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Norms, Society, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Women

[kinsey] A Look At The Lives Of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Adults

11 10 2011

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Happy National Coming Out Day!  Today, like every October 11th, we celebrate the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, take pride in being “out of the closet,” and reflect on how far we have to go to achieve full sexual and gender equality.  An important part of this celebration is acknowledging the diversity even within LGBT communities and, more importantly, raising awareness about the unique experiences of subgroups within the larger LGBT population.

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey

Before Chaz Bono, author and transgender son of Cher and Sonny Bono, joined the show Dancing With the Stars, transgender people gained more visibility with the release of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey.  This survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Lesbian and Gay Task Force, captures a glimpse of the lives of over 6,000 transgender and gender non-conforming adults in the United States.  The results of the survey, which I summarize below, provide a picture of this population’s experiences with prejudice and discrimination, in employment, health care, and education, and their demographic profile (e.g., race, age, income).

Who Are Transgender And Gender Non-Comforming People?

Although the use of the acronym LGBT is intended to be as inclusive as possible, we actually lump several unique subpopulations together in referring to “transgender” people (the T in LGBT).  Although still lumping multiple groups, one important distinction is between transgender and gender non-conforming individuals.  Transgender and gender non-conforming individuals share their distinction from cisgender people in that their gender identity and/or gender expression differs from (or does not “match”) their sex assigned at birth.

For many transgender people, namely transsexuals, this entails planned (“pre-op”), partial, or complete (“post-op”) transition from their sex assigned at birth to their current gender identity; however, many transgender people do not pursue such surgical or hormonal treatment (“non-op”).  The reasons for forgoing this transition vary, including the high costs that are typically not covered by health insurance or lack of health care access all together, disinterest in or limited options to physically altering one’s body, or fear of the potential side effects of surgery or taking hormones.  Gender non-conforming individuals differ in their gender expression in that they fall outside of (e.g., a third gender) or somewhere in between (e.g., androgyny) the traditional gender binary (female and male).

As I noted above, both of these terms represent multiple subgroups.  Within the umbrella of transgender, there are individuals who identify as transgender, MTF (male-to-female) or transwomen, FTM (female-to-male) or transmen, transsexual, and two-spirit.  The umbrella of gender non-conforming includes individuals who identify as gender non-conforming, genderqueer, cross-dresser, androgynous, third gender, feminine male, masculine or butch female, aggressive, as well as drag kings and drag kings.  Yet, for some individuals, these categories overlap or co-exist, most notably intersex people, whose biological sex (including chromosomes, anatomy, and hormones) does not neatly fit into female or male.

It is of crucial important to distinguish these gender identities and expressions from sexual orientation and identity; although some lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people are also transgender or gender non-conforming, gender identity/expression is a distinct personal and social characteristic from sexual orientation/identity.

The Lives Of Transgender And Gender Non-Conforming People

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey offers an extensive look at the lives and experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming adults in the United States, including a look at the economic and employment profile and health profile of this population.  You can see the executive summary here and the full report here, as well as video overview here.  The survey offers a number of important key findings:

  • Over 40% of respondents reported attempting suicide at some point in the past, compared to the 1.6% in the general (predominantly cisgender) population.  The rates of suicide attempts are much higher among transgender and gender non-conforming adults who have been unfairly fired from a job, harassed or bullied in school, physically or sexually assaulted, and/or who live in poverty.
  • Many respondents live in extreme poverty.  In fact, this population is four times more likely than the general population to live in households with annual incomes less than $10,000.
  • Among transgender and gender non-conforming adults who were “out” in elementary, middle, and/or high school, the majority were harassed, one-third were physically assaulted, and 12% were raped or sexually assaulted.  These experiences with violence were so severe that they led 15% to leave school.
  • Respondents are twice as likely as the general population to be currently unemployed.  For racial and ethnic transgender and gender non-conforming adults, the rate is four times the general population.  Almost half reported being unfairly fired, denied a job or promotion, and 50% reported being harassed at work.  The majority have avoided discrimination by either hiding their gender identity/expression or delaying their gender transition.
  • A substantial number have faced housing discrimination, and have been homeless at some point because of their gender identity/expression.
  • Over half have faced harassment or disrespect in public accommodations, including hotels, restaurants, public transportation, and government agencies.
  • Overall, transgender and gender non-conforming people report higher rates of HIV infection, alcohol and drug use, and smoking.  Many have either faced discrimination in health care or been denied care altogether.  Half reported that they have had to teach their medical providers about transgender care.
  • Over 50% have been rejected by some or all of their family members because of their gender identity/expression.  HIV incidence and attempt suicide rates are substantially lower among those whose families are accepting.

Now What?

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey is an important and overdue assessment of the state of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals’ lives in the United States.  Now, with more insight into this populations’ experiences with transphobic prejudice and discrimination, poverty, family rejection, and illness, advocates, politicians, medical professionals, and researchers can make steps to improve the lives of transgender and gender non-conforming people.  For example, these findings suggest that LGBT activists’ focus on ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, same-sex marriage, and other issues of sexual equality must also include pushing for social change that addresses the unique needs of transgender and gender non-conforming people.  It also means seriously rethinking access to various institutions (e.g., college), as well as services and care (especially medical care), that continue to use the traditional gender binary of female and male.

While increasing visibility of transgender and gender non-conforming people is an important first step, there remains a great deal of work to improve the lives of this population and ensure equal status for all regardless of gender identity and expression.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Coming Out, Discrimination, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, HIV & AIDS, Homophobia, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT People, Mental Health, Poverty, Prejudice, Queer, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Suicidality, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence