It stands to reason that GLBT issues are the civil rights cause of the time. Progress has cascaded from the recesses of special interest to a mainstream position of advocacy. Thirteen states that have legitimized gay marriage, a new (and still slight, but growing) majority of Americans support an expansion of rights, and the Supreme Court decision Hollingsworth v. Perry reversed the infamous Californian Proposition 8; these developments have snowballed into a victorious trend. And of the many individuals, institutions and organizations that have won these battles (from Dan Savage to Andrew Sullivan) should be credited. But one nonprofit stands above the rest, both in terms of brand success and efficacy, and that is the HRC: the Human Rights Campaign.
There's a small complaint though, that might be worth filing against these honorable and decent institutions, and liberal society as a whole. There is a "politically correct" way of referring to, shall we say less tactfully, the gay issue. The token term, the verbiage du jour, the acceptable fragment of lexicon is "the GLBT community". That's all well and good-- broad strokes cover broad territory. But by creating a label-- a brand, if you will-- for the sexual minority, entirely different groups are bundled together. And while these groups have like interests, as time goes on and freedom prevails, there stands a chance that this unwieldly categorization will mask the subtle differences in each group's goals.
What does that mean? Let's take a look.
G(ay) and L(esbian)
As this author sees it, these two parties are closely aligned in their presumptive objectives and goals. These are people who consider themselves homosexual, seeking legal recognition of their rights to pursue their hearts.
The similarities is amplified in part by an accident of history. Were gay rights being explored prior to the vast success of the women's movement, there might be more differences. For simplicity sake, consider when a wife was legally considered tantamount to property for the husband. If this was still the society we were living in, a lesbian relationship would have a clear absence of command; gay men could find themselves in an equally awkward position where patriarchy would need either division or an official decision.
(B)isexual
The Bisexual aspect of GLBT is far more interesting than the Gay or Lesbian, which requires a thought experiment to have any real distinguishable features that are not mutually comprehensive. But consider: a person cannon be monogamously bound to a bisexual relationship! Bisexual, by definition, is a preference or an orientation towards both sexes; but in marriage, there ultimately is only one choice: someone of the same sex, or a different sex. Even if we decided to be creative and consider a third transgender option, monogamy is monogamy.
This, in a way, implies a tacit endorsement of polygamy, which is absolutely not one of the current (or foreseeable) goals of the GLBT movement, so it's interesting that bisexuality is almost always listed along with the others. Certainly individuals identifying as bisexuals need protection of their private choices, and can easily unite with the opposition to sodomy laws. But that is a victory achieved in Lawrence v. Texas, and has diminishing relevance as more and more rights are protected and enabled.
Polygamy is one of the current scare tactics against the GLBT movement by both the religious right and the conservative movement (assuming some fissures between those two entities). The argument that "if we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy?" This is justified further, and not unreasonably so, by religiously permissible history of polygamy in Islam. Mormonism, however, is not usually mentioned due to its semi-Christian nature, although it obviously should be.
(T)ransexual
This topic is the one where I differ slightly from many of my reasonable friends and activists. No doubt a reader could interpret this author's views as slightly "transphobic", and that's probably a reasonably valid criticism. So let me preface with a disclaimer that I harbor no personal malice, and that this is an abstract consideration.
Transexuality involves the surgical switching or the change of identity from male to female, and vice versa. A number of transgender individuals describe feeling "trapped" in a body of the opposite gender. Those willing to commit to the full change may take hormone therapy, undergo surgical procedures, and take on new names and identities.
Personally, this author has no problem with allowing a consenting adult go through the surgery, and while he may feel uncomfortable with that, by no means should any grown person be prevented from pursuing happiness by that account.
However, there have been some recent reports of children assuming different gender identities, and then it does not become a strictly personal decision. There is often an imposing request that the masculinity or femininity of grammar be changed for an individual, for example. While this may be considered a sign of respecting their life choices, it also is requesting that we create some cognitive dissonance: I knew you as a man, now you are a woman, and I will address you as a woman. So your identity has changed. Or was it always a woman, and now I am addressing you correctly, where previously I was mistaken. But you simply were, physically, a man, and using the opposite gender can be found insulting quite easily as well.
This is further complicated by using children; could a doctor follow the Hippocratic oath faithfully while giving, say, an eight-year-old child a sex reassignment? What if they are "certain" of their choice? It seems extraordinarily difficult, and while I doubt caprice is common, it's not unthinkable. If you think this is just alarmist talk, read the case of David Reimer and the unfortunately named Dr. John Money.
Then, of course, there is something that strikes some men in a type of "body horror": the idea of being bamboozled, by being tricked. It's evident in our media from Futurama to South Park to The 40 Year Old Virgin: the accidental romantic entanglement with a transgender person, unaware of that status. If a man or woman feels uncomfortable with having a physical relationship with a person who has gone through a gender transformation, is there a burden on the person who has undergone that procedure to be transparent? Otherwise seems dishonest; actually, dishonesty is difficult to separate from the entire issue, as judgmental as that sounds.
Let's elaborate: consider living in a state where gay marriage is illegal. Two men who identify as men cannot marry. But then, another man has a sex change and can be recognized legally as a woman, and she can marry a man now. As you can see, there is conflict in lumping these groups together, because advancement is not in lockstep between the different communities.
GLBT is a packaging problem, for good causes that are tied but not uniform. Let's hope this is acknowledged, lest a risk that the package may unravel from within.
What does that mean? Let's take a look.
G(ay) and L(esbian)
As this author sees it, these two parties are closely aligned in their presumptive objectives and goals. These are people who consider themselves homosexual, seeking legal recognition of their rights to pursue their hearts.
The similarities is amplified in part by an accident of history. Were gay rights being explored prior to the vast success of the women's movement, there might be more differences. For simplicity sake, consider when a wife was legally considered tantamount to property for the husband. If this was still the society we were living in, a lesbian relationship would have a clear absence of command; gay men could find themselves in an equally awkward position where patriarchy would need either division or an official decision.
(B)isexual
The Bisexual aspect of GLBT is far more interesting than the Gay or Lesbian, which requires a thought experiment to have any real distinguishable features that are not mutually comprehensive. But consider: a person cannon be monogamously bound to a bisexual relationship! Bisexual, by definition, is a preference or an orientation towards both sexes; but in marriage, there ultimately is only one choice: someone of the same sex, or a different sex. Even if we decided to be creative and consider a third transgender option, monogamy is monogamy.
This, in a way, implies a tacit endorsement of polygamy, which is absolutely not one of the current (or foreseeable) goals of the GLBT movement, so it's interesting that bisexuality is almost always listed along with the others. Certainly individuals identifying as bisexuals need protection of their private choices, and can easily unite with the opposition to sodomy laws. But that is a victory achieved in Lawrence v. Texas, and has diminishing relevance as more and more rights are protected and enabled.
Polygamy is one of the current scare tactics against the GLBT movement by both the religious right and the conservative movement (assuming some fissures between those two entities). The argument that "if we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy?" This is justified further, and not unreasonably so, by religiously permissible history of polygamy in Islam. Mormonism, however, is not usually mentioned due to its semi-Christian nature, although it obviously should be.
(T)ransexual
This topic is the one where I differ slightly from many of my reasonable friends and activists. No doubt a reader could interpret this author's views as slightly "transphobic", and that's probably a reasonably valid criticism. So let me preface with a disclaimer that I harbor no personal malice, and that this is an abstract consideration.
Transexuality involves the surgical switching or the change of identity from male to female, and vice versa. A number of transgender individuals describe feeling "trapped" in a body of the opposite gender. Those willing to commit to the full change may take hormone therapy, undergo surgical procedures, and take on new names and identities.
Personally, this author has no problem with allowing a consenting adult go through the surgery, and while he may feel uncomfortable with that, by no means should any grown person be prevented from pursuing happiness by that account.
However, there have been some recent reports of children assuming different gender identities, and then it does not become a strictly personal decision. There is often an imposing request that the masculinity or femininity of grammar be changed for an individual, for example. While this may be considered a sign of respecting their life choices, it also is requesting that we create some cognitive dissonance: I knew you as a man, now you are a woman, and I will address you as a woman. So your identity has changed. Or was it always a woman, and now I am addressing you correctly, where previously I was mistaken. But you simply were, physically, a man, and using the opposite gender can be found insulting quite easily as well.
This is further complicated by using children; could a doctor follow the Hippocratic oath faithfully while giving, say, an eight-year-old child a sex reassignment? What if they are "certain" of their choice? It seems extraordinarily difficult, and while I doubt caprice is common, it's not unthinkable. If you think this is just alarmist talk, read the case of David Reimer and the unfortunately named Dr. John Money.
Then, of course, there is something that strikes some men in a type of "body horror": the idea of being bamboozled, by being tricked. It's evident in our media from Futurama to South Park to The 40 Year Old Virgin: the accidental romantic entanglement with a transgender person, unaware of that status. If a man or woman feels uncomfortable with having a physical relationship with a person who has gone through a gender transformation, is there a burden on the person who has undergone that procedure to be transparent? Otherwise seems dishonest; actually, dishonesty is difficult to separate from the entire issue, as judgmental as that sounds.
Let's elaborate: consider living in a state where gay marriage is illegal. Two men who identify as men cannot marry. But then, another man has a sex change and can be recognized legally as a woman, and she can marry a man now. As you can see, there is conflict in lumping these groups together, because advancement is not in lockstep between the different communities.
GLBT is a packaging problem, for good causes that are tied but not uniform. Let's hope this is acknowledged, lest a risk that the package may unravel from within.
No comments:
Post a Comment