A number of people have asked what I think of the “die-ins” planned for Saturday’s parade. It’s complicated.
As a political strategy, I think the “die-ins” are a bad idea for a number of reasons.
Perhaps most importantly, it is causing division within the transgender community. While it is not uncommon for groups to have internal disagreements about strategy, it is rarely ideal for them to play out in public, particularly in front of the biggest audience of the year. Further, this is not a small difference in the tactics that best achieve a goal, but a larger difference about the goal and messaging of transgender participation in the Pride parade. Members of the transgender community in the Grand Marshall contingent are standing with the bulk of progressive San Diegans in celebration. Those involved in the “die-ins” risk seeming apart while urging more somber reflection.
Both feelings are important, but they don’t always work best together, as evidenced by the split between the Transgender Days of Remembrance and Empowerment. Coming just weeks after the Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land, this year’s Pride parade seems destined to be a victory party. As the victory most directly affects LGB Americans, it seems almost presciently wise that Pride chose to make the transgender community the Grand Marshal to ensure we had reason to celebrate together. (Open transgender military service may provide another reason.)
That also makes the “die-ins” seem like a slap in the face, despite the tone Pride Executive Director Stephen Whitburn tried to set in his open letter. The mix of offense, substance use and a party atmosphere could easily turn a well-intentioned attempt to raise awareness into screams of “Get up, T*****.” Or worse.
While I would have advised activists against the “die-ins”, I won’t ask them not to do it. I am not transgender, and came out as gay at a time when LGB support was building rapidly. I don’t know what it is like to feel that my community and its tragedies are too often invisible. I can respect the idea that the largest annual audience of the LGBT community and allies needs education more that celebration, and the “this isn’t the right time/place” argument has too often been used to delay progress. I doubt pundits hailed Stonewall as an act of strategic genius the day after it happened, much less the week before.
Instead, I have an unusual request for our readers, community and allies. Prove the strategist in me wrong. When the “die-ins” happen, be respectful. Encourage those around you at the parade to be respectful, or at least quiet. If someone asks “What are they doing?” educate them on transgender violence and suicide. If they ask “Why is the parade stopping?” remind them that small delays are sometimes required to ensure we keep moving forward together.
This is not much different than the issue of mainstreaming yourself or living in the trans ghetto. those who wanted to support trans women in mainstreaming themselves into the real world were silenced, marginalized and driven out of the community. History shall repeat, and another faction of the trans community will be marginalized and encouraged to get the hell out.
A former trans leader leading a happy life.
As a trans woman I take exception to the idea that trans people are somehow not affected by the supreme court’s decision on marriage. Trans people do marry. I am married. I have been with my wife for 22 years. We were legally married in 2013. We were first married in 1993 in a ceremony in Hillcrest at the Unitarian Church. Suggesting that Trans people are not affected by the supreme court’s decision drives a false wedge between us and the LGB.
As a post op of going on 40 years I have always been able to legally obtain a marriage license and marry.
Meredith – My apologies. I did not mean to suggest that transgender people wouldn’t be affected at all, or that they don’t marry. I was attempting to honor a point made to me by some activists, including transgender, that it is “more” of an LGB victory because if/where gender identity is respected by law/courts, the recent Supreme Court decision only affects the subset of transgender Americans who wish to marry someone of the same gender.(I also agree with President Obama that more equality is better for everyone, however they identify.)
In a classic Liberal / Libertarian society the state would have no business in marriage or anything else for that matter. If two, eight or thirty one people decided to enter into a marriage contract that is their business, the state would only be there to witness the contract. In terms of other aspects of equality if a bakery wishes to not indulge themselves in making a cake for a gay couple it it not their loss? After all they rob themselves of the clientele and will harvest much negative word of mouth advertising.
Haven’t people in their haste to grant what are in most cases already existing freedoms to minorities gone off the deep end and resorted to using the law as a club to oppress their oppresses?
Post Transsexual and living the good life.