Why we can’t all just get along…

There’s been a lot of discussion going on among the people I follow on Twitter about the need for diversity in activism versus solidarity toward single-issue platforms, but I think I’ve avoided discussing it because I’d already written in the past about this topic. But recently there was this article about the growing feud between supporters of Parker Marie Molloy and the fans of Andrea James and Calpernia Addams that’s making me want to revisit it and provide new context.

I think in the past, I’ve come across as bitter about the constant fractures in civil rights movements, but at the heart of my frustration is a recognition that we cannot hope to build a cohesive platform against oppressive groups. It’s always felt to me like people with an agenda toward discrimination have more willingness to set aside personal differences in their points of view if it means keeping a group they collectively don’t like disenfranchised. So for instance Catholics and Baptists might not agree on how to worship, but they will work together to oppress gays and trans people. So in this modern world where even basic human rights are a political football to be kicked around, the pro-discrimination groups always have a number advantage over the minorities they want to discriminate against.

But as the above linked article shows, even within the trans community it is all but impossible to find solidarity around any given issue. We can’t even agree on what words we want to be identified by, or who is allowed to use certain derogatory terms. There are some folks in our camp who feel we should band together with the larger gay and lesbian lobbies and work under a unified banner, but many others feel this is counterproductive because the GL lobbies do not address the concerns and needs of the B and T factions.

They have a valid point. After Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was overturned, the GL lobbies have not made any efforts to remove section 9 provisions that make being trans an offense worthy of a court martial. While GL lobbies continue to fight for marriage equality, they aren’t doing much to deal with discrimination legislation that their B and T factions have been asking for. And for that matter, the GL lobbies have never talked about bi members who are needing legal recognition of partnerships consisting of over two people of any gender. Many have avoided this because it plays into the religious right’s arguments that gay marriage is a slippery slope to bigamy, but by remaining quiet on the issue, they’re effectively erasing and silencing a large group of people they claim to represent.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t also be fighting for the issues that they think are important. But if they insist on labeling themselves as GLBT lobbies, then they ought to be bringing up the issues that the B and T factions feel are equally important alongside their own issues. That’s not happening, and the longer it doesn’t happen, the more bitter many members of our factions become at the continued erasure. But what are we given for our anger but more admonishments not to fracture the movement?

This is the kind of erasure that comes as a result of solidifying many diverse groups with separate needs into a single platform that chooses only a few key issues to campaign for, and it should be noted how many of these platforms campaign for legal changes that only benefit the most successful and affluent members of a minority. Which is to say, the white upwardly mobile factions.

It’s not just trans folks dealing with fractions like this. Feminism has this wide assortment of groups who all feel like they have to speak out against the larger factions because their needs are not being addressed. The larger groups with the most influence have centered their campaigns around abortion and pay equality, and while these issues are important, they don’t address the needs of millions of women from other races and cultures.

I’m not even going to get into the trans-exclusive groups who feel they’re being attacked by trans activists despite many of their most vocal members calling for the legal eradication of our basic human rights. What I’m talking about instead is how these calls to lean in and lend support to a few key issues tends to erase individual experiences and needs in every community. I’m talking about things like the polarizing topic of legalizing sex work, or even the recognition that someone can be a sex worker and still be a feminist, or the need for modern feminism to accept more input from black, Hispanic, and Asian women, who all feel that the platform at the top is looking mighty white. And yes, I’m talking about trans feminists, who have to keep pointing out to other feminists that their gender is still valid even if their genitals are not surgically altered.

As much as I’d like to see a larger coalition that combines the collective bargaining power of more oppressed groups, the problem remains that the larger a lobby becomes, the less ability it has to speak for all its members. In the cases of both GL and feminist lobbies, what ends up happening is that their collective campaigns speak only to the needs of their white financially stable members, while everyone else is ignored or derided for breaking apart their movements.

Yes, it is frustrating to me that we can’t all get together to fight against oppression, but the fact is, simply being in a similar position does not mean we all have universal experiences or universal needs. What I need as a white bisexual transsexual is not going to be the same as a black or Hispanic person with similar gender and sexual expressions. We might have some parallels in our needs and histories, but they also have to deal with additional discrimination from whites due to their race, and they have to deal with violence and aggression from their own peoples. A person of a different race with my exact same gender identity and sexual orientation will even have to put up with discrimination from gays and lesbians of the same race because being trans and bi is not seen as a valid choice. It’s “being confused,” or “fence sitting,” or “trying to have it both ways.” The gays and lesbians who believe these things are the same people who will later approach those same bi trans folks and tell them, “You should let us speak for you.” Sure, let a group of people who don’t even believe in you speak for you at the bargaining table. How could that possibly go wrong?

I find this to be endlessly frustrating at times. I find it just as frustrating when someone tells me I don’t know what real discrimination is because I’m white. I’ve dealt with abuse from early childhood, even within my own family. The abuse I’ve suffered was physical, emotional, and sexual, and even when I reported it, it was condoned by people in positions of authority over me because “maybe I had it coming.” I know exactly what systemic discrimination feels like, and I have never felt like I had any support group that spoke for me and my needs, nor any legal recourse against the constant forms of discrimination I dealt with. So I may not have direct experience with racism, but I can’t imagine it’s any less unpleasant than what I grew up with.

But, having fought for and won some battles to gain legal recognition of my chosen gender, I can also look around and admit that there are others who have it worse than me. And that’s heart-breaking to understand. I’ve been beaten so badly that I had bones broken. I was abused so constantly that I was afraid to go to school, a supposedly safe place for kids. I was sexually abused and sexually assaulted by other kids, and I could not get any adults to believe me, much less to help. My life was pure hell. And yet, other people have it worse than me because they had to put up with all that I suffered, plus racism.

Part of me wants to complain that we are not in the Grief Olympics, that all our pains are equally valid, and yes, this may be true. But not all of our platforms are treated equally. The groups most likely to get air time are those who speak of a unified experience, and usually, that means white washing the cause so that it only tends to speak for the most affluent section of any given minority. What happens to everyone else is erasure of their needs, and if those less advantaged groups speak out against the white washing, they’re chastised for “poisoning the well.”

For as frustrated as I feel at our inability to unify, I also can’t deny that there is a need to keep all our voices distinct and separate. If there were a platform that spoke for my needs, it would still not address the needs of hundreds of thousands of people, possibly even millions. The moment that platform which spoke for me unified with a larger group for added clout, I can be sure some or all of my needs would be erased in favor of appeasing this larger whole.

So no, we cannot all get along and set aside our differences. This is because some of our differences are the direct result of so-called allies downplaying our needs and harassing us to let them speak for us without bringing our issues to the bargaining table. What they want from solidarity is our added clout for collective bargaining power, but they are not willing to hear us or admit that their focused platforms are not as universal as they claim.

I wish it were not the case, but the fact is, at this point, even in the face of a unified enemy, we may be better off remaining separate and distinct. We need to draw attention to our diversity, and to our many separate needs that cannot simply be addressed with a single law or court decision. We need to keep speaking out to our specific needs, even as larger collectives shout down at us to stop diluting their message. Because if we won’t speak for ourselves, clearly, no one else will, either.