ENDA Wrap-Up

This is probably the first of several ENDA wrap-ups, since I am still going back looking at loose ends, but with the new "compromise" announced, let's call it a day.

However, I do want to call attention to this post from Chris Crain on the controversy. It's an excellent summation, hitting on on a lot of the points I touched, often more clearly than I was able to do. Particularly in regard to the "we're all transpeople" meme, I found his arguments compelling:

You can hear that refrain in the more passionate commentary from those who object to removing transgender protection from ENDA. We are all gender non-conformists, they say, because men are supposed to be attracted to women, and vice versa. If you defy those roles, then you also defy the expectation of your gender.

To which he responds:

Like many other GLBs, I reject completely the idea that being gay makes me a gender non-conformist. For us, the hardest part about accepting our sexual orientation can be shedding the misconception that being gay makes us less of a man or a woman.

Many transsexuals and cross-dressers, on the other hand, have been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, a mental illness that involves a complete disconnect between their biological and intellectual genders. Other trans folk reject the whole notion of gender and express themselves in a way that defies the male-female dichotomy.

That is certainly their right, but having integrated my sexual orientation into my personality, I don’t feel one bit of inconsistency between being gay and being a man. I know many lesbians who feel the same way about their gender. For us, the entire notion of sexual orientation revolves around maintaining the male-female distinction. How else can I have same-sex attraction, unless I am a man attracted to other men?

The argument as stated by the "all-or-nothing" contingent is a prime example of the sloppy terminology I've been criticizing. The term of "gender identity" itself is nothing more than a substitution of perfectly serviceable words by broader, more "inclusive" and consequently less meaningful words that aren't quite on target. It's a nice way to fudge the discussion. (I could be a purist here and note that words have gender, people have sex.) You can go ahead and accuse me of being a precisian if you want, but I just want to point out that if you're not going to be accurate about what you're talking about, what's the point of talking -- unless you like the label "demogogue." (I find the use of these terms in the legal literature scary, to be honest, but have to remember that the legal definition and the psychological definition do not have to inhabit the same universe.)

I might also point out that the "everyone is trans" argument is an echo of the early right-wing anti-gay rhetoric, when such luminaries as Lou Sheldon held to the idea -- and broadcast it loudly and often -- that gays were victims of "gender confusion." Some of them are still spouting that line. Let me ask the trans activists: do you really want to go there?

As a gay man who is perfectly comfortable being a man and not only loving -- and desiring -- other men but cherishing everything it is that makes them men, I have absolutely no confusion about my sex. Male. Period. And I will quite readily admit that I have no comprehension of women or where they are coming from, even though we obviously have some common ground.

On the other hand, I have no element of my identity invested in particular sex roles, either in the bedroom or out of it. Does this somehow make me a transperson? I don't think so and I think anyone is going to be hard put to prove that I am.

I think in this area I'm on clearer ground than Crain, although we agree no the whole ENDA question: let's clean up the terminology so that we can actually have a discussion without wallowing around in words that don't fit what they are meant to describe (or actually, that don't describe anything -- and I think that's quite deliberate).