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.
Do you also recognise the right of women-born-women to exclude people who were born men from certain events, groups and activities because their concerns are NOT the same?
ReplyDeleteMy article has nothing to do with promoting the exclusion of people based on anyone's definition of exclusion criteria. My article is about the fact that it is a normal and required part of any community's self-definition process to define themselves through the articulation of what they are and what they are not. I do not advocate for or support people who suppose that they can restrict someone's access to events, activities, or services based on exclusion criteria that is neither relevant nor accurate.
ReplyDeleteI do however recognize the right that every non-profit organization has by virtue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to restrict access to events, activities, services, and even membership of the organization itself however they so choose. However, just because I recognize that someone has the legal right to do so does not mean that they necessarily have the moral right to do so.
ReplyDeletePeople who scream "child abuse" when they see a mother breast feeding a three year old child and as such restrict their participation in activities organized by a non-profit society dedicated to the prevention of child abuse have that legal right. However they do not have the moral right to restrict access simply because they have failed to educate themselves on the truth of mothers breastfeeding their children into toddler years.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, it is legal for a pharmacy run by a non-profit organization to restrict access to women-born-men, however it is not moral, and it is not based on facts about women-born-men. The resolution to this problem is in education not court orders.
Having said that, it is important to point out that in the women-born-women scenario you are discussing, all you are really doing is restricting access to women who have a large number of masculine traits, and from my experience that does not generally include most transsexuals who are more than one year into their transition. Ultimately such a restriction is likely to keep out just as many women-born-women as it is women-born-men and consequently, such a policy only serves to promote ignorance and discrimination rather than education and tolerance.
ReplyDeleteI want to further point out that my comments affirming the legal right to exclude are completely restricted to non-profit organizations. For-profit organizations and government run organizations cannot legally, or morally, restrict access to any person over the age of majority.
To clarify, defining a community through exclusion criteria does NOT translate into excluding people from events, activities and services based on the fact that they are not part of a particular community. In fact my article was about the fact that while a community can and should define itself through exclusion criteria, it cannot and should not suppose that that community definition translates into a right to exclude people from events or activities.
ReplyDeleteFor example. You do not need to be Homosexual to walk into a gay bar, or march in a pride parade, or utilize the services of a LGBT Support organization.
I should clarify what I said about defining to inclusion.
ReplyDeleteI do view differentiation as a necessary (and inevitable) part of a community’s coming into its own. I don’t mean to say that we should erase those differences, but that we shouldn’t focus on them in a way that divides, or look at doing so as an opportunity to get a step up (and perhaps leave others behind). Defining to inclusion, in a sense, is saying that yes, we’re different, but standing together for mutual rights and dignity.