Should homo and transgender fight separately?
May 17th is International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOT*). It commemorates the day when the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its disease catalog on May 17th 1990. But to this day transgender identities are still on the WHO list of mental illnesses.
Not only for this reason, some transgender activists are calling for a separation of lesbian, gay and bisexual people on the one hand, and transgender people on the other. They prefer to continue the fight separately.
We feel that the inclusion of the ‘T’ in an LGBT umbrella is at best confusing and at worst very unhelpful in the search for true equality for transgender individuals
says Miss Frances Shiels, secretary of the Northern Irish transgender organization Focus: The Identity Trust.
Also transgender writer Lee Hurley explains why it’s time to remove the T from LGBT.
Maria Sundin, member of the Executive Board of Transgender Europe (TGEU) from 2010-2013, disagrees:
Working in a non-separatist way and being open for all forms of trans and gender non-conforming identities, as well as being supported by the LGBTQI family, was essential to our success.
In this text I will list some of the common arguments in pros and in cons of transgender separatism.
First, a small note on words.
Using the suffix « -phobia » for any form of discrimination is actually not quite appropriate. I want to thank Sharon Dodua Otoo for reminding me of the problematic use of the suffix „–phobia“. Why we shouldn’t conflate bigotry and phobia is well explained here: Eater of Trees.
Using the word « trans » is also tricky because it has been coined by the medical system, it is pathologizing and genistalistic and also creates binaries (cis/trans), i.e. it makes people think there are such things as separated cis and trans identities. In this text I decided to use it, though, because it is the word that is still most commonly used by activists.
And intersex people?
The Equality and Way of Life Policy Unit at the University of Leipzig advocates a changing of the name IDAHOT* to IDAHIT*, where “I” stands for « discrimination against intersex people ».
The Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner summarises the situation of intersex people in the illustration below:
But in this article, I will not address the pros and cons of removing “I” from “LGBTI” because I am not familiar with the discourse surrounding this (even though I can imagine that some of the arguments could be similar to those of transgender activists). (Update Mai 18th 2015: Someone drew my attention on two texts that are adressing the appropriation of intersex issues by LGBT interests: here and here – in german with some links in english).
Now, here we go!
TRANS’ SEPARATISM – PROS AND CONS
1. Pros of removing the T from LGBT
- The LGBT umbrella is confusing.
LGB have to do with sexual orientions and being transgender has to do with gender identity.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different issues. The question of which gender_s I am attracted to (for example whether I am straight, gay, lesbian or bi) is different to the question of which gender I want to live in and whether this is in agreement with the gender that I was assigned at birth (for example whether I am cisgender, transgender or intersex).
Transgender people can be straight, gay, lesbian, bi, pan or asexual.
Cisgender people can be straight, gay, lesbian, bi, pan or asexual.
- The political demands are different.
Same-sex marriage, adoption rights, access to reproductive health, or the right to donate blood are often at the top of the lesbian and gay rights activists’ agenda. On the other hand, transgender activists are fighting to stop pathologization of their identities, against abusive requirements and for a reform of the legal procedure for hormone therapy and surgeries. In its new campaign, TGEU refers to the legal situation of transgender people in Europe as a « nightmare »: a diagnosis of mental illness, forced sterilization as a condition of legal gender change and / or forced divorce, are requirements in 34 European countries.
- LGBT organisations are using the T for their image but are actually not really T-aware or T-inclusiv.
Most of them don’t truly address trans issues and are more focused on LGB in training and advocacy.
To name a few exemples:
When they fight for same-sex marriage they don’t fight against forced divorce for trans people. When they campaign for the right of same-sex couples to adopt children, they don’t campaign for the right of pregnant transgender men to be legally considered as the kid’s father. When doing HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention campaigns they focus on gay people or MSM (men who have sex with men) and hardly ever adress the specific issues of HIV among trans’ communities…
2. Cons of removing the T from LGBT
- Separatism would weaken the movement.
In the last 40 years LGBT has become a powerful instrument of social and political change. Plus, these alliances are a form of solidarity which is in line with the history of LGBT.
- LGB and Trans do have issues in common.
Lesbian, Gays and Bisexuals are often gender non-conforming, therefore LGB and T are part of the same struggle against gender roles, patriarchy, hetero_sexism… And a lot of people begin their adult life as homosexuals and then make a gender-transition, so inside the community the genderlines are blurring and it is more about a spectrum than about two opposites formulas.
- The trans’ separatist western concept can not work among the large gender variant global population living with HIV. Therefore, separatism would complicate tremendously the struggle against HIV.
- LGBT organisations can actually be (or become) T-aware and T-inclusiv.
Best practice example is the UK-based association Stonewall who published in February 2015 a report that details different ways in which people with trans expertise can get involved in the work of LGB organisations. The report Trans People and Stonewall is available online.
- Instead of breaking apart, the LGBT communities should raise awareness on intersectionalities between gender, sexuality, race and class.
Discussions about the appropriateness and effectiveness of the “LGBT” umbrella are important and this could lead to specific measures according to the context.
Removing the “T” from “LGBT” does not mean ceasing alliances.
Continuing to include transgender under an “LGBT” umbrella does not mean that it would not be possible to work separately on specific issues.
The one approach does not exclude the other: LGBT umbrella organizations can exist and struggle against patriarchy and heteronormativity as part as a larger queer movement. Lesbians and gays can of course have their own organisations (and parties and magazines, as they already have 😉 in the same way that transgender people can organize in order to address specific trans’ issues. People and organizations can join forces and work together anytime, with shared goals and shared values, sometimes as allies, sometimes as concerned groups, depending on the issue.
Alliances should be fair – also in funding and decision-making.
Equality legislations should protect lesbian, gay and bisexual people based on „Sexual Orientation Strategies“ (protection of sexual orientations), and protect transgender and intersex people based on „Gender Equality Strategies“ (protection of gender identities).
LGBT communities should raise awareness on intersectionalities between gender, sexuality, race and class. Read the statement by the LGBT association Gladt about the Kiss-In that the gay anti-violence-project Maneo is organizing in Berlin for IDAHOT*.
Who are “they”– “the LGB”?
Lesbians, gays and bisexuals are not a homogeneous group, “they” can be allies, “they” can be unaware or indifferent, “they” can be discriminating against transgender people, “they” can be transgender themselves. So …
Let’s be specific!
On the occasion of IDAHOT*, the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association ILGA-Europe launched the 2015 Rainbow map which gives an overview of the current situation for LGBTI people in Europe.
I think each letter is a community in and of itself.
Therefore I advocate for a self-organization of each letter in and of itself and then I advocate for different alliances and different umbrellas – depending on the issue.
For instance, a round table about gender equality is definitely an issue for the CTI-alliance: Cisgender, transgender and intersex community.
Of course, people belong to several communities. That is the reason why we have to think intersectionnally and consider multiple privileges and multiple discriminations – also while forming alliances.
On that topic, you might want to read Eske Wollrad White bond – Which question is raised in front of the alliance question? and Nadine Lantzsch Exclusion or starting point? Alliances and questions to the lesbian movement in the GDR
Now what do you think? Which community could or should address the following issues – and, if required, which additional communities should be involved in alliances?
Conversion therapies, HIV, labour market, domestic abuse, marriage, adoption, misogyny, school bullying, heterosexism, racism, discrimination within the global queer movement, lack of (appropriate) media coverage, sport, rape culture, ableism, forced sterilisation, diagnosis of mental illness, discrimination agaist bisexual people, classism, physical violence in public spaces, access to healthcare …
In my humble opinion the rainbow flag actually represents the human community.