Transgender

Forum












Protection for WHOM?

An essay on Inclusion and Identity Politics

By Mardi Clark
A couple of articles I read recently brought increasingly familiar images to my mind: those of "separatist" gays, looking to retain whatever "focus" the gay movement ever had, at the accepted expense of isolation from other "different" groups of people, and not simply trans, either, but others as well (such as S&M; practitioners).

But a separatist ideology, contained in this "focus" and the resultant isolation, is where I see a mistake being made in the context of today's, and especially future, political landscapes. It is, I think, an error both in judgment as to political effectiveness, and a mistake in what is really being fought for here. I see tightly focused single issue/identity activism as successful only in earning a "special rights for special groups" tag—which is exactly what it has earned! Let's examine the issues a bit more closely.

All civil rights legislation concerning discrimination in this century developed from the premise that there was not significant unjust discrimination within our society! This is why it began as being so specific; first, only women were included, as an "Oh, yes, them too" class, deserving rights but somehow overlooked. Then it expanded as other "injustices" were uncovered: age, national origin, race, religion, etc. Today the laundry list of "protected/included groups" and those seeking such status, has grown so large that the general population has decided that it is ridiculous and is therefore not having anymore of it. Witness the wholesale failure rates of "special rights" legislation (primarily GLBT) nationwide. What has happened is, it has become obvious that there are many groups that suffer discrimination within our society, and that they are so diverse and numerous that any attempt to include them "laundry list" style is just doomed to failure. And justifiably so! For it's awkward, and bound to leave out significant and deserving groups. This method of combating discrimination has reached its limit. It must be replaced, and in order for that to happen, a re-thinking of just what is being protected in the first place must happen: A commonality must be sought out and identified!

Consider this: That the commonality we all share; GLBT, racial, creeds, sex, nationality, religion, gender—everyone who is discriminated against—is exactly one thing: We are all perceived as being simply "different" from the majority. Period. That is all; just different. Beyond that it is merely a matter of degree of that "differentness"—between the Goth and the gay youth, between the transsexual and the girl with "too many" piercings. We have lost the right to be harmlessly different from the majority.

There is a vast difference, already recognized in our culture, between harmful behavior and that which is merely "different." Generally, non-consensual acts are considered harmful in some way whereas those activities which are consensual and cause no "harm" to others are not. Indeed, "harm" could be defined partly by this definition of consent.

So what I propose is a refocusing of energy—away from the specific interests of any single group, and towards the single interest all groups suffering unjust discrimination have in common: the elimination of bigotry resulting from a simple majority perception of difference.

The advantages of such a new direction are primarily twofold: First, this provides a clear agenda: Elimination of discrimination based upon perception of harmless difference as defined by existing law. And secondly, enables an alignment of a much larger, and therefore more powerful segment of the electorate. No longer "one in (a debatable) ten," but a much, much more powerful group, one almost defying the definition of "minority."

There are several steps that must be taken towards this goal and they must be taken by each and every minority group practicing identity politics today. The first of these is recognition that it is indeed difference that is at the root of prejudice, and not any other fundamental thing—in fact that all other aspects of prejudice stem from this fundamental root cause. Recognizing this need not cause disintegration of the organizational structures which required such spiritual and physical sacrifice to build, however! No, what it will require is a strengthening of existing coalitions and the creation of one umbrella organization with representation of all groups suffering from difference discrimination. This could be formed on a representational model such as a congress, where strategies would be formed by a plenary consensus.

Whatever form such a movement takes, however, it is important that our commonalties be recognized by all, and that work begin towards acting upon this knowledge in a concerted effort. Coalition building is the most essential element of our hopeful unified success and this must be made a first-order priority by every single "different" individual in this country.

TGF's Home Page