I don’t know if
you’ve heard the news but two Texas representatives took the first steps in
recognizing same-sex couples. Yes, you heard that right, two representatives
from Texas.
In February 11
Democratic Senator Chuy Hinojosa from McAllen proposed a bill that would grant
same-sex couples civil unions. But on Valentines Day, Democratic State Rep. Lon
Burnam from Fort Worth gave LGBTQ Texans a better Valentine’s Day message; full
marriage equality to same-sex couples. Both have received harsh criticism from
opponents of same-sex marriage but Senator Hinojosa has received that criticism
from both sides of the aisles, with members of the LGBTQ communities claiming, “civil unions are not the best avenues for achieving equality.” read more
I also agree
with these claims.
And although I
am sure that Senator Chuy has good intentions I know that his intentions cannot
make up for our unequal representation. Furthermore, this also got me thinking
about partisan and policy rhetoric. The other day I became really interested in
Rich Tafel, founder of the
Log Cabin Republicans and Public Square. So I googled him and came across this
video http://bigthink.com/users/richardtafel.
Tafel argues that Democrats need to learn how to talk Republican. He goes on to
say that Democrats frame policies or issues in a way that threatens the status
quo as opposed to the Republicans who use more result-orientated rhetoric. In
my opinion what he meant was that Republican rhetoric appeals to people’s
wallets. Tafel said that when we speak about “rights” or “getting rights” we
make the status quo, conservative individuals, feel that we are taking
something away from them. Tafel used the push to “universal healthcare” from
Obama. He said that instead of President Obama saying it’s a right for everyone
to have access to healthcare, he should have framed it saying, “folks we do
have universal healthcare in America, it’s called the emergency room.” Tafel
went on to say that it would be more cost-effective to invest in preventable
health issues than to have our tax dollars pay for the emergency room. I agree.
But this rhetoric
is problematic.
Rich Tafel is
telling me that I, a queer Latina, low-income, woman need to watch my words to
satisfy the “status quo”? And who is this “status quo” anyway? Privileged white
wealthy men? Rich Tafel is telling me that demanding rights is not the best way
to do it because it might make the status quo feel like we’re taking something
away from them? Really? Why shouldn’t discourse aim to make people realize that
the rights that oppressed groups demand are rights that the “status quo”
already have? Why should oppressed groups comprise their principals to satisfy
the money in someone else’s pocket? And while Gay Rights Activist groups like
to frame it in similar ways such as, “Three words that will save the economy:
Gay Bridal Registry,” I would like to offer my own thoughts:
Equality
representation for my partner and I is not for sale. My life and health are not
for sale. My welfare is not for sale.
Why must we try to put a dollar sign in front of every issue what is
wrong with just doing the RIGHT thing? Civil unions might mean the ability to
file joint tax returns but it does not mean the RIGHT to marry; it does not
mean marriage equality.
While more states celebrate
marriage equality there are about 40,000 foreign nationals in same-sex
relationships living the U.S. who, no matter where they live, can’t really take
part in that celebration.
Yes, we have made a significant
change. Yes, we finally have a president who unapologetically recognizes gays
and lesbians. But for all those screaming “Victory!” in their state because
marriage equality is now a thing, I ask, what does equality mean to you?
I feel as we have forgotten
the Defense Against Marriage Act. DOMA signed by President Clinton in 1996
defines marriage between a man and a women and does not require a state to
recognize same-sex marriages. Despite the fact that the law is not being
defended by our current administration, DOMA is still enforced. Which means, I
can go get married in Maryland but the federal court will not recognize my
marriage. Sounds unnecessary?
Not for the 40,000 foreign
nationals in same-sex relationships to whom getting married still means running
a risk of getting separated rather than a life-long togetherness. Unlike,
straight couples where a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident can file for
their spouse’s green card, same-sex couples don’t have that option. In fact, if
attempted, the undocumented spouse may face deportation. That doesn’t seem very equal to me.
Fortunately, President Obama
is already on it trying to grant same-sex couples equal immigration rights.
However, there is of course opposition with ridiculous reasons as to why they
are opposed. David Nakamura and Zachary A. Goldfarb from the Washington Post
report on some of those oppositions in their article titled “In immigration
debate, same-sex marriage comes to the fore”. Republicans fear that this will
kill any chances of a “comprehensible immigration reform”.Some evangelical churches
and religious organization continue to fight against anything dealing with same-sex
marriage by claiming that it will indefinitely ruin the traditional family.
Many now claim that President Obama has to choose between Latinos and gays.
But is this really about either group?
No, this issue shouldn’t be put in the middle of the table as if now
the undocumented straight individuals had to fight the undocumented gays and
lesbians for a right that has been long
overdue to both parties. This is simply about providing the exact same opportunity that
straight couples already had to same-sex couples. Does this mean that if
same-sex couples have equal immigration rights Obama will not push a full
immigration reform? No, why should extending equal rights have anything to do
with writing an immigration reform? Does this mean that if a legally married
spouse wants to petition for a green card for their spouse the traditional
family values will fall apart? NO!
The fact that this issue even has to be discussed clearly shows how
broken the notion of marriage equality really is.
I had the distinct pleasure of attending the B.Y.O.B. (Bring Your Own Benefits) Rally on the Union Patio on November 19th, which was hosted by Burnt Orange Benefits (B.O.B.) and SpeakOut. The speakers were informative and moving as they mobilized students and educated the attendees on the details surrounding domestic partnership benefits at the University of Texas, the most important fact being that UT does not offer them.
The rally was started off by Karen Landolt, member of the Pride and Equity Faculty and Staff Association (PEFSA) and employee of the McCombs MBA Career Services, who spoke about the 70 page PEFSA report presented, detailing the inequities of not providing domestic partner benefits, to President Powers last year and read a letter of resignation written by previous UT employee Dr. Vargas. The letter declared that the main reason Dr. Vargas was taking a position at UCLA was due to the fact that they offered the domestic partenership benefits her and her partner needed. A subsequent speaker, Ambalika Williams of Join The Impact, motivated the crowd with calls for in your face activism. The call for equality rang clear as the crowd cheered for more.
There was a slew of representation from across campus including Scott Parks and Muneezah Kabir from Student Government, Britney Mcalister from University Democrats, Brandon Hunter with the Latino Leadership Council, QSA representative Katie Wanamaker, Michael Benbow of StandOut, Kile Akerman with UT Speech, Brendan Chan with the McCombs Diversity Council, and Anna Russo representing the Women's Resource Agency. Each speaker offered just another reason to join the fight and get truly active. Where rallying is good, they said, letter writing was better. Where letter writing did the trick, meeting with officials in person is a more effective avenue. The crowd learned that we need to not only approach President Powers and the Board of Regents, but also approach our legislators. The call to lobbying was made. It will be interesting to see if it is met.
The most moving speaker by far was Roberto Flotte, a representative of QPOCA and a student staff member of the GSC, who read a letter addressed to President Powers about his recent experience with a current UT professor. Roberto had written a paper about queer and two spirited people in the latino community and the professor circled and questioned the terminology used in his paper. After having to define queer, transgender, and two-spirit to this professor, he was asked if he was a homosexual. Roberto does not identify with the term "homosexual," so he said no. In response the professor told him "good job son," and went on a diatribe about homosexuality being wrong.
This is happening on our campus. This is a reallity in 2009 at a school that prides itself on being open to all students. To echo Roberto's eloquent call for justice, how are queer students at the University of Texas supposed to feel safe if the queer role models we have are leaving the university for better opportunities to have their relationships recognized and there families provided for? Not providing domestic partner benefits is not an option. As students we demand equality and a regard for basic human rights not only on UT campus, but across the state of Texas and ultimately the world.
Watch the film and let's break it down. Please add comments if you’ve got thoughts on the topic.
For reference: LGBTQIAA refers to “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally...” There are some more letters in the alphabet soup… but I think this should suffice for the moment.
First the speaker, Bruce, wants to make sure we're not offended. "I'm not being prejudiced." Ok... how many times have we heard this phrase? "I'm not prejudiced, but I just don't think interracial marriages are good for society.... but I just don't think women are capable of taking on leadership roles in government... but I just don't like the idea of poor people living next door..." That's totally fair, right? We shouldn't be offended by anything as long as it follows a direction not to be. "Don't be offended, I just don't think straight people should be allowed to reproduce and indoctrinate their children in their 'breeder' ways. They're overpopulating the planet! Destroying our environment!" Really? “Don’t be offended.” Does Bruce think that's a rational preface?
We've also heard the "I'm not racist... my best friend in fourth grade was black," from white people trying to assert their "openness." These feeble justifications are always directed from those groups with privilege to those without. You never hear, "I don't hate people of other religions, I work with a guy who's Christian." It's the same thing with Bruce, " I've had many transgendered friends."
Just because people have the same identity-marker, doesn't mean they share the same opinions. When you say transgender, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean anyone who doesn't identify as "man" or "woman" including genderqueer, intersex, transexual, etc. Or are you referring to a specific segment of non-binary-identified individuals? In Bruce's case, he is talking about MTFs and FTMs and telling everyone else they can't use the label transgender.
That's not cool. It's not your identity (from what I gather). You can't tell people how they can and cannot label themselves. You don't get to decide when someone is or isn't "transitioned." People get to decide that for themselves. Transitioning is a process that only the person going though it can understand. It's like college. My parents say I won't be done until I finish my pre-med classes, whereas, for me, I know that my liberal arts degree will be just enough for what I want to do with my life. I'm not being lazy or trying to avoid the expenses of an extra semester, I just don't think I'll enjoy it, ever use it, or feel comfortable in physics. Just like a trans person might not need that extra surgery, hormone, or behavior change. It's not for them. (As a cisgender person, I would appreciate feedback on this argument from transfolk....)
Breaking the binary isn't solely about fitting back into it. In general, trans identities are about being born into the wrong body or socially assigned identity. Well, what if the body you identify with doesn't fit in either of the gender boxes our society accepts? What if they both feel wrong? Should people's goal be "assimilation," as Bruce suggests?
Next, I want to talk about Bruce's suggestion to break up socio-political movements for change.
Split up? Break into smaller identity-based groups? Why are gender identity issues (QTI) and sexual orientation issues (LGBA) lumped into the same acronym? Because they're both dealing with society's perceptions of who individuals should be based on gender stereotypes. Our greatest gender socialization is to be attracted to someone of the "opposite sex." So there is definitely overlap in the issues these identity groups face.
In struggles for women’s equality, lesbian women were integral to progress. However, their needs were often swept under the rug in an effort to encourage assimilative acceptance from those in power- straight men. They had to jump one hurdle at a time. Same here- Bruce says that Lesbians and Gays have been fighting for their rights for a long time and deserve them now… Transfolk can wait.
Well I’m pretty sure that the Lesbian activists of the 1960s and 70s didn’t like it when they were told to wait. Why should Transfolk have to wait? Why are their needs inferior to those of the more socially recognized groups? Why have LG and sometimes B rights been fought for longer than the Ts? Because the groups that have been able to fight longer have had more privilege of voice to fight with. That means that Lesbians couldn’t speak up as much during the women’s rights movement because it wasn’t safe. Now, Transfolk can’t fight as openly because it isn’t as safe, as say, for a white man who’s gay.
Let’s look at safety for a sec: This data on murders of Transfolk is from 2004. (These are only the ones that were reported.)
Shot: 128 Stabbed: 70 Beaten: 49 “Murdered” (no cause specified): 45 Strangled: 22. There are 20 additional causes. 22 individuals died from multiple causes.
The 2007 National School Climate Survey found: 85.1% of transgender students reported being verbally harassed based on their sexual orientation and gender/gender expression
96.1% of students heard negative comments related to students’ gender expression
38.4% of students reported feeling unsafe at school because of their gender expression.
From GLSEN’s 2007 National School Climate Survey
Transfolk need legal protection now more than ever. No one should get left behind or denied equality, especially from folks struggling for the same recognition. We’re all in it for the same reasons- rights and respect.
Third, Bruce makes the point that if Transfolk are grouped with LGB-identified people, the general public will assume that LGB people all want to transition to another gender. If you really didn’t have any prejudice against transfolk, then why would you see this ignorant assumption as a bad thing? Also, I’m pretty sure he completely ignores bisexuals in his arguments, too.
Then he says the “transgendered” community needs to educate people about the misconceptions of their identity. Let’s break this one down with an example: choose your most valued identity. Got it? Now, what’s one misconception people have about that identity? Now, what Bruce is saying, is that it is your job to go out and educate every person about your most valued identity- one that you are emotionally connected to and tired of defending. This would be exhausting, emotionally draining, and people would probably tell you you’re just flaunting it or pessimistic or angry all the time. Maybe that sounds like a challenge to you, but maybe it sounds scary. Either way, you’ll need people to back you up- allies.
We’ve got to be allies for each other. We can’t just be selfish and have our own interests at heart. Either we’re all equal or we’re not. Splitting up the LGBA and the QTI means that LGBA folks might get to be more equal with straight people, but it certainly doesn’t mean equality for everyone.
Bruce suggests that these communities fight for their rights separately and once they’re equal they can be rejoined into one community, “the human race.” Until then, he says, they need to be separate. Really? How is this logical?
I understand that lumping a bunch of different identities under one umbrella confuses people about the differences between gender identity and sexual orientation. But that just means they need a little education. Separate is not equal and being divisive won’t help anyone in the long run.
