This blog article is in response to an article posted by Mercedes on her blog Dented Blue Mercedes, of which I am an avid follower. I was just going to respond in the comments section, but my post became more of an independent article,so I am posting it here with a link in the comments of Mercedes' article. The specific article I am responding to is titled Rocky Horror and the Holy Grail, or: The problem with Defining to Exclusion.
Mercedes has argued that when marginalized communities define themselves by exclusion it creates problems and as such, from my understanding, these newly emerging communities should instead define themselves through inclusion. While on the surface that solution sounds great and would prevent conflicts like the ones Mercedes mentioned from occurring, it also explicitly prevents a clear definition of the community itself, and thus perpetuates the marginalization of various groups within the community.
To define oneself is to distinguish and articulate how you are different from others. For example, I am a transsexual woman; I am not, and never have identified as, a crossdresser. This distinction is important because to understand who I am and thus understand the concerns and issues that are relevant to me, you must understand that I am not a crossdresser. To try and define the community of which I consider myself part of ,via inclusion to encompass me and crossdressers, is to marginalize the specific concerns of both me and crossdressers alike. We are different; to fail to recognize that difference is to fail to self-identify and thus continue the marginalization. Consider what defines the LGB community, particularly, that this community encompasses all those whose sexual attraction is not confined to the opposite-sex and is thus defined by the fact that they are not heterosexual.
This exclusion criteria is important because the only way a community can be recognized as one that was marginalized and whose rights and equality is something that needs to be safeguarded, is by saying "We are different than you and as such my concerns are not always the same as your concerns". By defining and clearly articulating that difference, or rather that exclusion criteria, the community itself draws attention to the specific needs and concerns that are unique to that community.
Defining yourself through exclusion is a fundamental and necessary fact of human existence. The real concern here is that, when defining yourself through the process of exclusion, these communities must acknowledge that that exclusion does not preclude some shared interests ,and that the exclusion itself does not necessitate conflict.
Having said all that, while defining yourself via exclusion is important in having your individual needs and rights recognized and protected, it is also important to recognize that the needs and rights of other such defined communities may coincide with some of the needs of your community. In those situations, by working together as a unit you can achieve more than you can by working independently. Translated into the specific GRS situation within the trans community, having GRS reinstated is a transsexual concern, not a crossdresser concern, and trying to say differently only creates problem; however the freedom of gender identity and expression is an issue that both transsexuals and crossdressers alike can join forces and fight for. I am not arguing that GRS reenlistment does not have ramifications on the freedom of gender identity and expression. I am simply arguing that enlisting crossdresser support for GRS reenlistment only serves to inflame the differences between the two distinct communities, and perhaps a better solution would be for the transsexual community to enlist the help of the crossdressing community to enshrine the freedom of gender identity and expression, without attaching GRS reenlistment to the agenda. Then the transsexual community, buoyed by the enshrinement of gender identity and expression can have better expected outcomes on the issue of GRS reenlistment.
