Last week, I participated on a panel, Transgender People in Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Settings: Recent Research, hosted by the Virginia Anti-Violence Project (VAVP) at University of Richmond’s downtown campus. Dr. Eugene F. Simopoulos, a forensic psychiatrist, presented a thorough review of gender identity and expression, and the treatment of trans people in the criminal justice system and medical institution. Responses were offered by Edward Strickler (secretary of the Board of Directors of VAVP), Rebecca Glenberg (Legal Director, ACLU of VA), and me (in my capacity as a sociologist). Our collective goal was to educate local law enforcement about trans people, particularly their treatment within the criminal justice system, and hopefully offer recommendations for improvements. Below, I offer the notes from my response to Dr. Simopoulos. You can see media coverage of the event at GayRVA.
As a sociologist, I study discrimination, and its consequences for marginalized groups’ health and well-being. There are two features of my scholarship that I believe will be useful for today’s conversation about trans people generally and in the criminal justice system specifically. The first is to offer a critical sociological perspective for understanding discrimination. The way that most people understand discrimination in an everyday sense is fairly narrow. In particular, discrimination is thought to include specific, rare, and identifiable events of unfair treatment that are committed by specific, identifiable perpetrators who harbor prejudice toward a particular disadvantaged social group. Thus, the intent of one’s actions are crucial here, regardless of the impact on the victim.
However, as a sociologist, I recognize that discriminatory treatment is much more complex than this, and often occurs in the absence of explicit, conscious bias. The discriminatory acts perpetrated by a member of a dominant group against a member of a stigmatized group are merely the behavioral component of a system of oppression. And, these acts are justified by the ideological component of this system of oppression, or what we typically call prejudice. I suggest, then, that we think about transphobia as a system of oppression. The discrimination and harassment that transgender people face is neither rare nor random; rather, trans people repeatedly face discrimination, harassment, and violence across multiple contexts, and throughout their lives.
Transphobia Is A System Of Oppression
Transphobia, as a social system, includes the discriminatory acts perpetrated by cisgender (i.e., non-transgender) people against transgender people. It also operates through important institutions in society – the medical institution, the criminal justice system, education, the military, and so forth. It shapes the policies and practices of these institutions in ways that disadvantage, harm, and/or exclude transgender people. Finally, transphobia manifests as laws and policies, particularly at the federal and state levels, that disadvantage, harm, and/or exclude transgender people. This includes seemingly-neutral laws and policies that are harmful, nonetheless. One example would be the push for voter identification laws, which places additional burdens on trans people, particularly those whose legal documents do not reflect their current gender identity.
I offer this perspective of transphobia as a system for two reasons. First, I wish to highlight that the challenges to improve the treatment of transgender people are by no means unique to the criminal justice system. Second, I want to push our conversation about trans people’s interaction with and experiences in the criminal justice system into the broader context of transphobia. The challenges that transgender people face in the criminal justice system are both cause and consequence of the challenges they face in other domains of society. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey notes that trans people are more likely to interact with law enforcement and/or enter the criminal justice system because: 1) they are more likely than cisgender people to be a victim of a crime, particularly anti-trans hate crimes; 2) they are more likely to be homeless, kicked out of their homes by family or due to extreme poverty; and, 3) because of employment discrimination, many transgender people turn to sex work, selling as well as using drugs, or other parts of the underground economy.
Intersections With Racism And Classism
The second feature of my scholarship that I wish to share today is a framework that considers how other systems of oppression intersect with transphobia. Black feminist scholars have developed a concept called intersectionality to understand the interlocking and mutually reinforcing relationships among racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism. We can add to this list transphobia. Relatedly, they argue that you cannot attend to one of an individual’s multiple social identities to fully capture that individual’s experiences, well-being, and status in society.
In today’s conversation, by thinking of trans people solely in terms of their gender identity and expression, we miss important ways in which transgender people’s experiences are shaped by their race and ethnicity, immigrant status, social class, and other identities. More specifically, we miss that certain segments of transgender communities – namely poor trans people, trans women, trans people of color, and especially trans women of color – are particularly vulnerable to violence, discrimination, harassment, sexual violence, poverty, homelessness, and poor health.
Findings from a few recent reports, including the NTDS Survey, and the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs report for 2013, suggest that these groups bear the greatest burden of the challenges that trans people face in the criminal justice system. And, these disparities exist in every context in the system, from interactions with police, to arrest, to treatment in prisons.
- While 60% of the transgender people in the NTDS survey report any interaction with law enforcement, the number jumps to 80% for Black and Latina trans women.
- Trans women of color are more likely to report being targeted, disrespected, and harassed, and assaulted by police than other trans people, and LGBT people in general. For example, under New York City’s practice of “stop-and-frisk,” wherein 90% of individuals who were stopped were Black or Latina/o, LGBT people, especially trans women, were disproportionately represented.
- Trans women, particularly trans women of color, are often stopped by police because they are assumed to be sex workers – a pattern that the ACLU and other groups has now referred to as “walking while trans,” akin to racial profiling or “driving while Black.”
- While only 3% of the general population has ever been incarcerated, 16% of trans people have ever been sent to jail or prison. And, that figure is 41% for Black and Latina trans women; almost all report that they were incarcerated due to transphobic bias.
- Among trans people who have been incarcerated, trans women of color serve longer sentences, and are more likely to be harassed, and physically and sexually assaulted by both fellow inmates and prison staff than other trans people.
- And, a greater percentage of trans women of color report that either other inmates or prison staff block their access to hormones or regular medical care.
To conclude, I want to reiterate the importance of recognizing the roles that race, ethnicity, immigrant status, and social class play – or, more specifically, how racism and classism intersect with transphobia. We must avoid thinking of and treating trans communities as a monolithic group, as there is a great deal of diversity within these communities.
References And Additional Information
- Simopoulos, Eugene F. and Khin Khin. 2014. “Fundamental principles inherent in the comprehensive care of transgender inmates.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 42: 26-36.
- Summary of findings [pdf] and full report [pdf] of National Transgender Discrimination Survey. (And, see my summary here.)
- Supplementary report [pdf] of Black respondents in the NTDS survey. (And, see my summary here.)
- Supplementary report Hispanic and Latina/o respondents [pdf] and Asian and Asian American respondents [pdf] in the NTDS survey.
- Summary of findings [pdf] and full report [pdf] of the 2013 National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs report.
- It’s A War In Here: A Report on Transgender People in Men’s Prisons [pdf] by Sylvia Rivera Law Project.
- The Williams Institute report on Latina trans women’s experiences with law enforcement [pdf].
- “The Unfair Criminalization of Gay and Transgender Youth,” Center for American Progress, June 29, 2012.
- A Roadmap for Change: Federal Policy Recommendations for Addressing the Criminalization of LGBT People and People with HIV [pdf].
- Queer (In)Justice book
- “Dealing with Transgender Subjects,” Police Magazine, January 4, 2013.
- Resources from the Transgender Law Center
Sociologists Andrew M. Penner and Aliya Saperstein have published yet another study that demonstrates how we categorize others in terms of race — not just racial stereotypes, but even racial identity — is dependent upon their other characteristics. In their most recent, published in the June 2013 issue of Gender & Society, the researchers found that individuals’ socioeconomic position and gender predicted whether their race would be recorded by interviewers as Black, white, or other:
Researchers study what shapes racial classification. In a novel study that looked back at how survey interviewers racially classify people over the course of their adult lives, sociologists Andrew Penner and Aliya Saperstein discovered that from one year to the next some people’s race appeared to change. This change occurred when the interviewer in one year wrote down one race, but in the next year the interviewer wrote down a different race. Penner and Saperstein call these changes in classification “racial fluidity,” and the researchers wanted to know what affected how a person’s race was perceived.
Though they found general factors that seemed to determine respondents’ racial classification, some were gender-specific:
The study found that men and women had similar levels of racial fluidity overall, and some factors, such as where the people lived, resulted in similar changes for both women and men. All else being equal, people were more likely to be classified as white and less likely to be classified as black if they lived in the suburbs, while the opposite was true for people living in the inner city.
However, other factors that triggered changes in racial classification differed by gender. In particular, poverty made men and women less likely to be classified as white, but the effect was stronger for men. Penner explains, “This is consistent with traditional gender roles that emphasize men’s responsibility as breadwinners, so that poverty changes how men are seen more than how women are seen.”
On the other hand, women, but not men, who have received welfare benefits are less likely to be seen as white and more likely to be seen as black, even though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that in 2010 70% of welfare recipients are not black. Penner continues, “This result speaks to deeply entrenched stereotypes of ‘welfare queens’ originally made popular by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Knowing that a women is on welfare triggers a racial stereotype that isn’t triggered for men.”
Consistent with other widespread stereotypes, being a single parent affected a woman’s likelihood of being classified as white more than a man’s, while having been in prison affected whether men were classified as white but not women.
Some Additional Thoughts
This study, and their larger research project on racial fluidity, is a major contribution to the sociological understanding of race. Put bluntly, their work provides further evidence that race is socially constructed. It is not fixed (i.e., unchanging) nor universal. Rather, race is contextual, fluid, and, most importantly, an arbitrary way of classifying people.
It is also a commendable extension of intersectionality, wherein the researchers highlight the intersections of gender and social class in racial classifications. How we view others in terms of race is contingent upon their socioeconomic standing and gender. To study race separate from other important social characteristics is to paint an incomplete picture. I particularly appreciate their detailed discussion of doing intersectionality (i.e., applying an intersectional framework) in quantitative research — a practice that remains contentious among (and even antithetical to some) intersectionality scholars.
One question that lingers in my mind is the perceivers’ background. That is, do these dynamics play out the same way for all interviewers? Are they unique to interviewers of a particular background? Heck, let me just say what I really mean — is it just white interviewers whose racial classifications appear to be contingent on classed and gendered notions of whiteness and Blackness? The researchers accounted for various characteristics of the interviewers, including gender, level of education, and age — none of which effected racial categorization. But, interviewers’ self-identified race did.
In particular, respondents were significantly more likely to be coded as white if the interviewer was white (at least compared to Black interviewers); the reverse was true for coding respondents as Black. (Maybe these dynamics would reflect other race interviewers’ racial classifications if the survey was more racially inclusive than Black, white, and “other.”) Since this was merely background noise for the researchers’ primary analyses, they did not dig deeper into this. Why are white interviewers more likely to see respondents as white, and Black interviewers more likely to see respondents as Black?
I suppose from my own experience — notably, as someone who is racially ambiguous — there tends to be just as much racial inclusion as there is racial “Othering.” Some whites and Blacks have seen me as “one of their own,” while others see me as belonging to some other racial group. So, I am surprised by this bias of categorizing others as one’s own race. Certainly more research is needed to better understand these dynamics.
A point that seems lost in the academic press releases, commenting on “how others see your race,” is that those “others” are NLYS interviewers. Certainly, interviewers and researchers are mere humans; thus, it would be inappropriate to expect them to be totally free of society’s influences (including stereotypes and biases). I could make an issue of the supposed generalizability of the study — that we cannot assume trained interviewers’ racial classifications reflect those of laypeople. But, their other work makes this concern unnecessary.
One article about the study noted:
These changes were not random, as one might expect if the interviewers were just hurrying to finish up or if the data-entry clerks were making mistakes. The racial classifications changed systematically, in response to what had happened to the respondent since the previous interview.
Interviewer error is inevitable. But, this kind of systematic racial misclassification raises some cause for concern. These “mistakes,” to some unknown degree, biased research based on the NLYS data. In particular, it may have produced inaccurate estimates of racial differences on some outcome (e.g., health).
Fortunately, NLYS along with many other widely used surveys (and the US Census) have ceased interviewer-imposed race and ethnicity. Now, respondents themselves provide their self-identified race and ethnicity. While this eliminates interviewer bias, this approach is still imperfect for the fluidity and complexity of race. In another study by Saperstein and Penner, individuals’ racial self-identification depended upon prior incarceration. While this may appear to be evidence that respondents lie about their race (which is possible), it actually suggests that even how individuals see their own race depends upon their experiences and status. Arguably, these contingent self-identified racial categorizations may reflect how others see them.
In other ways, researchers and interviewers may continue to impose their perceptions on respondents. I have witnessed first hand the imputing of respondents’ gender. The rationale given against explicitly asking respondents their gender was to avoid offending them: “can’t you tell by my voice that I’m a man!” I am confident that most people were accurately classified by their self-identified gender. But, I worry about the unknowable number of people who were misclassified. I wondered why, when asking about personal opinions and intimate details of strangers’ lives, there was fear of offending them by asking about something so readily volunteered, constantly provided on official forms.
Although our openness as researchers introduces messiness and complexity, I feel we owe it to the people we study to willingly capture the messy, complicated details of their lives and identities. I fear we too often choose the convenience of easily contained categories and quantifiable experiences over the rich complexity and diversity of our social world. Though barely mentioned in the press for the article, Penner and Saperstein’s study reminds us just how complicated and messy that world is.
In 2008, I jumped at the opportunity to attend the Williams Institute’s primer on quantitative research on sexual orientation. By the time I attended the Fenway Institute‘s Summer Institute on LGBT Population Health in 2011, and thereafter, a lot had changed in survey research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans* people in the US. The good news is that we have advanced at lightening speed in collecting samples of LGBT people and information about their sexual and non-sexual lives. The bad news – reflected by the ease with which one anti-gay study disrupted a Supreme Court case on marriage equality – is that we have not come far enough.
LGBT Inclusion in Survey Research
With the simultaneous decline in anti-LGBT prejudice and growing visibility of LGBT communities in the US, it is unsurprising that research on LGBT people, too, is an evolving process. In the late 1980s, the beginnings of LGBT inclusion in survey research were the product of attention to the HIV epidemic among gay and bisexual men. For example, the General Social Survey (GSS) added a question about the sex of their sexual partners in 1989. Unfortunately, there seemed little hope to investigate the lives of LGBT people otherwise. For some time, questions about sex (including sexual orientation) remained tucked away in confidential, self-administered questionnaires.
Now, more and more national surveys are asking respondents about their sexual orientation right in the core of the questions. Self-reported sexual identity has now worked its way to the status of a (sometimes included) sociodemographic characteristic, along with gender, race and ethnicity, education, and so forth. The most recent surveys, like a 2012 Gallup poll and the 2012 American National Election Survey (ANES), even asked whether adults identify as transgender. In many ways, we have achieved LGBT inclusion in survey research. But, in many ways, we are far from accurately representing LGBT adults and youth in social surveys.
“Shades” of Representation
The typical gold standard for survey research is representativeness – ideally, the collection of a large sample that reflects the “true” US population. Because some segments of the population are small and/or hard-to-reach, additional strategies are sometimes employed to better achieve representativeness. These strategies include oversampling (i.e., collecting a larger share of a specific subpopulation) and using sample weights to correct for sampling bias. Social scientists have made great efforts toward achieving representation of LGBT people in quantitative research. Indeed, several nationally representative surveys now include measures of sexual identity or sexual orientation.
But, what do we mean when we say we have collected a “nationally representative sample of LGB” youth or adults? I think it is worth teasing out the nuances of “representation.” Here are some important dimensions, in my opinion:
- Capturing the “true” size of the LGBT population – LGBT individuals and (not “or”) same-gender couples.
- Appropriately representing each segment of the diverse LGBT population – trans* people (e.g., transwomen, transmen, genderqueer people), lesbian women, bisexual women, bisexual men, gay men.
- Effectively representing other axes of diversity in the LGBT population – race, ethnicity, immigrant status, nationality, body size and shape, religion, socioeconomic status, ability, age, marital/partnership status, parental status, geography (e.g., urban, rural, East Coast, South), and political ideology.
- Representing the experiences, interests, and well-being of LGBT people (e.g., discrimination, political priorities).
Right now, we are just beginning to navigate the challenges of the first of these dimensions of representation – estimating the “true” size of the LGBT population. In fact, one data collection service, Knowledge Networks, offers sampling procedures to collect representative samples of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. However, in doing some digging, I believe their means of means of oversampling LGB individuals and applying inclusive sample weights rely on the American Community Survey (ACS) estimates of “same-sex couples.” Absent of a Census or similar comprehensive assessment of all LGBT-identified individuals in the US population, our best attempts at nationally representative samples of LGBT people are not necessarily “representative.”
Further, our first achievements of “nationally representative samples” of LGBT people may be underrepresenting certain segments of the LGBT population – namely, older LGB adults, bisexuals (especially men), LGB people of color, and LGB people in rural areas. And, I must make painfully clear here that we are even further behind on collecting representative samples of trans* adults and youth. Though we have the very large National Transgender Discrimination Survey, the earliest, very preliminary estimates of the size of the trans* adult population are based on the state of Massachusetts.
Why It Matters
For a number of reasons, it is important to 1) include at least one measure of sexual identity in surveys, 2) include at least one (inclusive) measure of gender identity, 3) include at least one (inclusive) measure of marital/partnership status, and 4) oversample LGBT people and/or apply LGBT-inclusive sample weights. First and foremost, the evidence that sexual and gender identities are an importance aspect of our social world is undeniable. The lives of LGBT people are uniquely shaped by their marginalized status – persistent discrimination, invisibility, income inequality, exclusion, relatively worse health and well-being, lack of relationship recognition, etc. This appears to shape a distinct set of political behaviors and attitudes, one’s social networks, and likely a host of other aspects of the everyday lives of LGBT people.
Second, social scientists must correct the lingering heteronormative and cisnormative biases in survey research. Surveys that fail to ask respondents’ their sexual identity, and that do not allow respondents to report same-gender partners contribute to the systematic erasure of LGB people and their romantic and familial relationships. Too few surveys collect information on respondents’ sex-assigned-at-birth, current gender identity, and current gender expression. Simply asking “female/woman” or “male/man” makes invisible those who are trans* and intersex. Further, I worry that many researchers using telephone surveys continue to assume the respondent’s gender based on their voice, presumably to avoid offending them by asking. Even for researchers whose primary interest is not in the lives of LGBT people, these biases are urgent matters for presenting accurate estimates in their research.
Finally, though many scholars do not agree or care to admit it, academic research has great power in defining the population. In excluding measures that reflect or at least include LGBT people, we send the message that that population is unimportant to social science research. Or, by slipping in “sex of sex partners” at the end of the survey or in a self-administered questionnaire, we signal the persistent taboo-ness of same-sexuality. By using one catch-all item for LGBT identity, scholars (unintentionally) erase the diversity within LGBT communities. But, by treating sexual identity and gender identity as core elements of sociodemographics, we make clear the importance and normalness of these aspects of individuals’ lives. Why not take the position of having a positive impact on the lives of LGBT people?
We are, indeed, on our way to better representing LGBT people in our research. In the mean time, there is much room for improvement. And, it is important to extend and enhance research via other methods (e.g., respondent-driven sampling, qualitative methods), as well, to capture a comprehensive understanding of the identities, well-being, and experiences of LGBT people.
Below, I include a list of resources and additional readings that may be useful for future LGBT research.
- LGBTData.com – resources for quantitative research on LGBT people
- The Fenway Institute Center for Population Research in LGBT Health, including the LGBT-inclusive data archive, Summer Institute in LGBT Population Health, and pre-doctoral mentoring program
- Healthy People 2020 LGBT Health Initiative
- Social Justice Sexuality Project (survey of LGBT people of color)
- National Transgender Discrimination Survey
- The Williams Institute, including reports on LGBT demographics, and primer on quantitative LGBT research
- “FAQ: Collecting Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data” (Center for American Progress)
- “Gathering Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data in Health IT: Better Information Can Help Close Disparities Gap.” (Center for American Progress)
- “On Sex/Gender Checkboxes” (recommendations for measuring sex, gender identity, and gender expression by Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello)
- “Gender-Related Measures Overview” (by the Gender Identity in U.S. Surveillance group)
- 2012 LGBT-inclusive Gallop Poll
- National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior and special issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine devoted to the survey’s preliminary results
- International LGBT Psychology Summer Institute
- ASA Section on Sexualities, including the 2012 pre-Conference, “Crossing Boundaries, Workshopping Sexualities”
Baulme, Amanda K., and D’Lane R. Compton. 2014. “Identity Versus Identification: How LGBTQ Parents Identify Their Children on Census Surveys.” Journal of Marriage and Family 76: 94-104.
Black, Dan, Gary Gates, Seth Sanders, and Lowell Taylor. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources.” Demography 37: 139-54.
Bradford, Judith B., Sean Cahill, Chriss Grasso, and Harvey J. Makadon. 2012. Why Gather Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Clinical Settings: Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute.
Bradford, Judith B., Sean Cahill, Chriss Grasso, and Harvey J. Makadon. 2012. How to Gather Data on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in Clinical Settings: Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute.
Dilley, Julia A., Katrina Wynkoop Simmons, Michael Boysun, Barbara A. Pizacani, and Mike J. Stark. 2010. “Demonstrating the Importance and Feasibility of Including Sexual Orientation in Public Health Surveys: Health Disparities in the Pacific Northwest.” American Journal of Public Health 100: 460-7.
Egan, Patrick J., Murray S. Edelman, and Kenneth Sherrill. 2008. “Findings from the Hunter College Poll of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals: New Discoveries about Identity, Political Attitudes, and Civic Engagement.” Hunter College, The City University of New York, New York, NY. Unpublished Manuscript.
Gates, Gary J. 2011. How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender? Los Angeles: The Williams Institute.
Gates, Gary J. 2013. “Demographics and LGBT Health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54: 72-4.
Herek, Gregory M., Aaron T. Norton, Thomas J. Allen, and Charles L. Sims. 2010. “Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample.” Sexuality Research and Social Policy 7: 176-200.
Herek, Gregory M. 2009. “Hate Crimes and Stigma-Related Experiences Among Sexual Minority Adults in the United States: Prevalence Estimates From a National Probability Sample.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24: 54-74.
Institute of Medicine. 2011. The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Meyer, Ilan H., and Patrick A. Wilson. 2009. “Sampling Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 56: 23-31.
Sell, Randall L. 2010. “Defining and Measuring Sexual Orientation for Research.” Pp. 355-74 in The Health of Sexual Minorities: Public Health Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Populations, edited by I. H. Meyer and M. E. Northridge. Springer: New York.
Sexual Minority Assessment Research Team (SMART). 2009. Best Practices for Asking Questions about Sexual Orientation on Surveys. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA.
Tourangeau, Roger, and Tom W. Smith. 1996. “Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60: 275-304.
VanKim, Nicole A., James L. Padilla, Joseph G. L. Lee, and Adam O. Goldstein. 2010. “Adding Sexual Orientation Questions to Statewide Public Health Surveillance: New Mexico’s Experience.” American Journal of Public Health 100: 2392-6.
With the start of Women’s, Womyn‘s, and Womanist Herstory Month this past Friday, I have been wondering what more I can do to challenge sexism — including my own. As I have noted in previous posts, I have an evolving awareness that my own disadvantaged social location as a brown queer man does not make me immune to sexism, nor any other system of oppression.
One important task of my anti-sexist advocacy is to become aware of the ways in which I am privileged as a man. I know this to be a particular challenge for queer men because of our awareness that we are disadvantaged among men. So, I was disappointed to find little beyond a few personal reflections from feminist-identified gay men to guide me and other queer men to understand and appropriately fight sexism. The Guy’s Guide to Feminism seems like a good start, but I find it useful to engage gay men from their unique relationships with sexism, women, and male privilege.
Feminism For Gay Men 101
Though I am just at the beginning of a lifelong journey to understanding sexism and my own male privilege, here are a few lessons I would like to impart to my fellow gay men:
- We are men. We hold male privilege. Period.
- Yes, number 1 is true despite our sexual orientation and despite our gender expression (no matter how feminine, androgynous, or queer). Though gay masculinity is devalued relative to hegemonic masculinity (i.e., white heterosexual middle-class able-bodied young/middle-age masculinity), it is still privileged over all femininities.
- Systems of oppression are linked including — particularly relevant to this discussion — sexism, heterosexism, and cissexism. As such, our liberation is tied to the liberation of ciswomen and trans* people.
- While number 3 is true, we are not immune to sexist attitudes and behaviors. And, most importantly, being gay does not make us anti-sexist. Our marginalized status among men may make it easier to understand sexist oppression, but it does does not preclude us from it. Just like heterosexual cisgender men who engage in anti-sexist activism, we must be active in challenging the prejudice, discrimination, and violence against women, and to keep our male privilege in check (i.e., give it up or use it for good).
- Though we generally are not sexually attracted to women, we are just as capable of sexually harassing or assaulting women. The root of sexual violence is power, not sexual attraction. I must point out here that too many of us have sexually harassed or assaulted women and naively excused the behavior as innocent because we are gay. Sexual violence by any perpetrator is wrong. But, that of gay men has the added element of placing our women friends and allies in the difficult position of questioning whether to feel violated or upset.
- Related to number 5, we must stop treating the women in our lives as objects or accessories. Yes, many heterosexual women are guilty of doing this to us — the gay BFF, every girl’s must have! — which is also wrong. Friendships that exist because of her gender or your sexual orientation are forms of exotification.
- Attraction to male-bodied individuals, men, and masculinity must be stripped of the presumed aversion to female-bodied individuals, women, and femininity. We need not be repulsed by female bodies just because we are not sexually attracted to (cis)women. Even when joking, this is no less problematic than (cisgender) heterosexuals who proclaim to be repulsed by people of their same sex.
- Certain aspects of gay men’s culture that promote pride and empowerment among us come at the expense of women’s empowerment. To call a fellow gay man “bitch,” “cunt,” and, more commonly in the drag scene, “fish,” is to use a term that derogates women. Though they may be positive in intent and meaning, these are not instances of reclaiming pejorative terms used against us: self-identifying as queer is; “servin’ up fish!” isn’t. Just think how outraged we would be if women decided to adopt “faggot” as a term of endearment among themselves.
- Our queer, bisexual, and lesbian sisters are oppressed by heterosexism and sexism. We, as LGBT and queer people, will not be fully liberated by addressing homophobia and heterosexism alone.
- Related to number 9, we must recognize that LBQ women are often subject to our sexist prejudice and behavior, ranging from anti-lesbian jokes to outright exclusion (often disguised as innocently bonding with other gay men or even the product of our exclusive attraction to men).
- The way that we devalue femininity among ourselves is another arm of sexism. The “no femmes” sentiment, aptly called femmephobia, is nothing more than the hatred of femininity, which is associated with women. Beyond eliminating this silly prejudice in our anti-sexist efforts, we do ourselves the favor of freeing the constraints on how we can behave and express our gender.
- We owe it — yes, we owe it — to the ciswomen and trans* people who have fought against the injustices we face to fight against those they face. Even when kept at the periphery or outright excluded, transpeople have fought for equal rights and status for lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. Many lesbian and bisexual women served as caregivers to gay and bisexual men with HIV/AIDS during the 1980s and 1990s, while also fighting along side those who worked for better HIV/AIDS health care. Feminists of all walks of life have advocated for our protection from prejudice, discrimination, and violence, seeing it as important in (and linked to) activism against sexist discrimination and violence against women.
We owe it to our ciswomen and trans* friends and allies — and ourselves — to be better feminists.