Inclusion in the Atrocious
March 27, 2018 4:15 PM Subscribe
"It is perverse to make people participate in an institution they deplore in order to access resources that should be guaranteed to all." Eli Massey and Yasmin Nair discuss whether trans inclusion in the military is worth fighting for, and why the "gay non-profit industrial complex" is suddenly taking on the issue of trans rights.
In an interesting instance of timing, I got into a brief conversation with someone about this on Facebook. The article here does raise some good points about how non-married domestic partnerships were affected when same-sex marriage was promoted as an Ideal.
But I still some to the conclusion that - listen, even if you think the military is a flawed institution, and even if you think some trans people may have only enlisted for the job training, I would wager that there are trans people who do not feel this way, and for whom serving in the military has been a lifelong dream - and I still believe that if someone truly wants to enlist, then they should be able to. Just like there were women who always wanted to serve, and people of color who always wanted to serve, and....
The military has definite flaws. It's still someone's dream.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:06 PM on March 27, 2018 [29 favorites]
But I still some to the conclusion that - listen, even if you think the military is a flawed institution, and even if you think some trans people may have only enlisted for the job training, I would wager that there are trans people who do not feel this way, and for whom serving in the military has been a lifelong dream - and I still believe that if someone truly wants to enlist, then they should be able to. Just like there were women who always wanted to serve, and people of color who always wanted to serve, and....
The military has definite flaws. It's still someone's dream.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:06 PM on March 27, 2018 [29 favorites]
ENDA actually was mentioned in the article, albeit briefly: "HRC has jumped on the issue, despite a spotty prior record of fighting for trans people. (In 2007 they were the largest LGBT organization that declined to oppose a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that excluded trans people.)"
posted by perplexion at 5:06 PM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by perplexion at 5:06 PM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
The military has definite flaws. It's still someone's dream.
This is just my opinion, but I think if your dream is to join an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, you should see a psychologist. Regardless of what gloss about honor and glory and protection and service you put on it, that's what a military is.
Discrimination is always evil regardless of who is doing it. The military is a sometimes-necessary evil that currently does a whole lot of completely unnecessary evil. I'm not sure how to feel about the conversation around the trans ban- and it's not my lane regardless- except to agree wholeheartedly with the article that those singing the praises of military service have completely lost the thread.
posted by perplexion at 5:20 PM on March 27, 2018 [14 favorites]
This is just my opinion, but I think if your dream is to join an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, you should see a psychologist. Regardless of what gloss about honor and glory and protection and service you put on it, that's what a military is.
Discrimination is always evil regardless of who is doing it. The military is a sometimes-necessary evil that currently does a whole lot of completely unnecessary evil. I'm not sure how to feel about the conversation around the trans ban- and it's not my lane regardless- except to agree wholeheartedly with the article that those singing the praises of military service have completely lost the thread.
posted by perplexion at 5:20 PM on March 27, 2018 [14 favorites]
I missed the part where they acknowledged the agency of the individual trans people who would choose to serve in the military if they could. I am as anti-military as they come; I would disband the military if I could. But if we're going to have a military, it shouldn't discriminate based on gender identity. That seems clear enough to me.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:33 PM on March 27, 2018 [43 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:33 PM on March 27, 2018 [43 favorites]
The left’s message should be clear: the military is a terrible place in which to seek inclusion. It is built around hierarchy and violence. Making it a slightly better place for LGBT people is of limited worth.
The disparity between the task of dismantling the military, and the task of making military service more inclusive and less dangerous for trans people who want or need to join, makes this analysis really troubling. We're not going to get rid of the military, without an almost unimaginable overhaul of the entire nation. (We may as well go ahead and imagine a federal jobs guarantee, free college, and free healthcare while we're at it, since that's why people sign up.) As long as we have the military--and fully acknowledging it's terrible, it's a moral stain on our national soul--it needs to be made fair, and needs to be made safe.
posted by mittens at 5:41 PM on March 27, 2018 [12 favorites]
The disparity between the task of dismantling the military, and the task of making military service more inclusive and less dangerous for trans people who want or need to join, makes this analysis really troubling. We're not going to get rid of the military, without an almost unimaginable overhaul of the entire nation. (We may as well go ahead and imagine a federal jobs guarantee, free college, and free healthcare while we're at it, since that's why people sign up.) As long as we have the military--and fully acknowledging it's terrible, it's a moral stain on our national soul--it needs to be made fair, and needs to be made safe.
posted by mittens at 5:41 PM on March 27, 2018 [12 favorites]
Some of you missed the second point of the article, which was that our time and energy is better spent fighting for more important things like healthcare and non-discrimination in employment. Yes, some trans people want to join the military, or stay in it, and I personally believe they should be able to. But there are hundreds of thousands of other trans people who do not have adequate healthcare or employment or even homes. Those things are far more urgent and have more long-term benefit to society.
posted by AFABulous at 5:43 PM on March 27, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by AFABulous at 5:43 PM on March 27, 2018 [15 favorites]
Military service kinda is part of the employment non-discrimination front, though? It's also, for better or worse, a powerful way of asserting one's legitimacy as an American. Denying a group the right to serve in the military is one way of declaring that they're not actually quite full citizens. I have big, big problems with the idea that military service makes one somehow more fully American, but I'm aware that these ideas are out there in the culture. They're not going away.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:51 PM on March 27, 2018 [21 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 5:51 PM on March 27, 2018 [21 favorites]
Really though my answer is more…why can't we do both? I'm for transgender people in the military and also for transgender people having access to appropriate health care. (And health care is wrapped up in this military issue too; one of the things about the military is that it is sort of a microcosm of America as a whole.) Let's push on all fronts simultaneously. Equality is equality, period. Root out bigotry wherever and whenever we find it.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:07 PM on March 27, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:07 PM on March 27, 2018 [7 favorites]
From TFA, emphasis mine
posted by AFABulous at 6:23 PM on March 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
Spade observed that the Pritzker push for military inclusion distracts from more pressing issues facing trans people:There is no national debate over whether trans people deserve healthcare. It's focused on "omg there's a 'boy' in the locker room with my little Suzy!" Trans people absolutely deserve to use the bathrooms they want to use. But we're forced to defend that instead of talking about why a teenager in my twitter DMs wants to commit suicide because he can't access healthcare.The campaign for military inclusion not only does nothing to support the grassroots work addressing the most urgent issues trans people face, it is actually likely to harm this work. As the Pritzker money pushes a national conversation on trans military service, all the red herrings used against trans people will play out in the national media. The right wing will have a field day with questions about how trans people use bathrooms and showers, whether government money should pay for gender-related health care, and whether and when we have to report our genital statuses.
posted by AFABulous at 6:23 PM on March 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
A really interesting point in the article, and one worthy of discussion, is that Jennifer Pritzker ("the first and only transgender billionaire", as seems to be attached to her name anywhere she's mentioned) has donated millions to create campaigns around the issue of trans military service.
I obviously think trans people must be allowed to serve in the military. It's hard to imagine someone who acknowledges transgender rights who would actually think that trans people being banned from military service, all else being equal, is good. (This is the internet so someone probably does think this for some weird reason.)
But the larger question of how much focus is warranted is troubling. I don't weight my opinion on this very highly because I don't have skin in the game and also don't know anything, but for the record I'd say "it probably merits some focus".
I don't like the idea that somebody was able to redirect all this activist energy and completely change the national conversation just by throwing a few million dollars at the right lever.
posted by vogon_poet at 6:27 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
I obviously think trans people must be allowed to serve in the military. It's hard to imagine someone who acknowledges transgender rights who would actually think that trans people being banned from military service, all else being equal, is good. (This is the internet so someone probably does think this for some weird reason.)
But the larger question of how much focus is warranted is troubling. I don't weight my opinion on this very highly because I don't have skin in the game and also don't know anything, but for the record I'd say "it probably merits some focus".
I don't like the idea that somebody was able to redirect all this activist energy and completely change the national conversation just by throwing a few million dollars at the right lever.
posted by vogon_poet at 6:27 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
I never liked the concept and institution of marriage either, but since it looks like it's going to stay around...
posted by knoyers at 6:32 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by knoyers at 6:32 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
The point is not that gays shouldn't have the right to get married or that marriage is inherently terrible. The point is that you shouldn't have to get married in order to access healthcare and other important rights.
posted by AFABulous at 6:34 PM on March 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by AFABulous at 6:34 PM on March 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
Well, yeah. The Pritzker thing is not great. It's never good when one person has an outsized effect on the narrative simply by virtue of extreme wealth. I'm with you there, and I'm with you that it's worth considering whether attention is being focused on the strategically and pragmatically most useful issues.
I think there's an argument to be made that the (largely symbolic) strategic value of military service and the relative ease of acheiving that goal makes it worth focusing on at this moment in time even at the expense of the much more pragmatically important (in that it would alleviate more suffering) goal of getting trans people access to the health care they need. I'm not going to stake out a position on that though, I'll let trans folks work that one out.
Which is probably my cue to shut up and get out of the way.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:47 PM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think there's an argument to be made that the (largely symbolic) strategic value of military service and the relative ease of acheiving that goal makes it worth focusing on at this moment in time even at the expense of the much more pragmatically important (in that it would alleviate more suffering) goal of getting trans people access to the health care they need. I'm not going to stake out a position on that though, I'll let trans folks work that one out.
Which is probably my cue to shut up and get out of the way.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:47 PM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
Some of you missed the second point of the article, which was that our time and energy is better spent fighting for more important things like healthcare and non-discrimination in employment. [...] Those things are far more urgent and have more long-term benefit to society.
The problem here is that banning trans people from the military isn't really about banning us from the military, it's about reducing our ability to be engaged in civic life. If we take the bait and say, oh, but healthcare is more important, or ENDA is more important, we're just ceding ground and making it easier to exclude us from other, less objectionable institutions in the future. The right to participate in public life is the struggle to focus on, and unfortunately ensuring equal access to the military is a piece of that puzzle.
I feel the same way about this as I do when people are transphobic towards Caitlyn Jenner. I can't stand her, and I hate defending her, but it's not okay for people to misgender or use other transphobic attacks against her (or anyone). That behavior is wrong no matter how much I dislike the target of the behavior. And while I'm not going to personally be spending a lot of my time and energy defending her, or trans access to the military -- my personal advocacy time and efforts go elsewhere -- I'm glad somebody's doing those things, because ALL of it is important work.
posted by zebra at 7:22 PM on March 27, 2018 [23 favorites]
The problem here is that banning trans people from the military isn't really about banning us from the military, it's about reducing our ability to be engaged in civic life. If we take the bait and say, oh, but healthcare is more important, or ENDA is more important, we're just ceding ground and making it easier to exclude us from other, less objectionable institutions in the future. The right to participate in public life is the struggle to focus on, and unfortunately ensuring equal access to the military is a piece of that puzzle.
I feel the same way about this as I do when people are transphobic towards Caitlyn Jenner. I can't stand her, and I hate defending her, but it's not okay for people to misgender or use other transphobic attacks against her (or anyone). That behavior is wrong no matter how much I dislike the target of the behavior. And while I'm not going to personally be spending a lot of my time and energy defending her, or trans access to the military -- my personal advocacy time and efforts go elsewhere -- I'm glad somebody's doing those things, because ALL of it is important work.
posted by zebra at 7:22 PM on March 27, 2018 [23 favorites]
Denying people the right to participate in the military has, historically, been a powerful means of denying them full civic participation or even full humanity. I'm definitely not here to tell the trans community what they should be investing their energy in, but Trump didn't just pick the trans ban out of a hat. He did it because to certain, horrible people, it would be a vivid symbol of the (supposed) unworthiness and entitledness of trans people. And when one particular right of yours is being used as red meat to distract the jackals, it doesn't strike me as good strategy to go along with it quietly.
posted by praemunire at 7:39 PM on March 27, 2018 [17 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 7:39 PM on March 27, 2018 [17 favorites]
This is just my opinion, but I think if your dream is to join an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, you should see a psychologist. Regardless of what gloss about honor and glory and protection and service you put on it, that's what a military is.
I feel a bit weird about this because I can very easily imagine a military whose primary purpose is peacekeeping. They are trained to kill, but their primary purpose is to keep vulnerable communities safe and stable in times of stress and establish, repair and protect infrastructure.
This conversation is particularly US-centric, and the US can't have this kind of military, so it's not really a point that applies. I can imagine people wanting to join that kind of military, and then getting into the US military and discovering that's not really what they do.
posted by Merus at 7:48 PM on March 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
I feel a bit weird about this because I can very easily imagine a military whose primary purpose is peacekeeping. They are trained to kill, but their primary purpose is to keep vulnerable communities safe and stable in times of stress and establish, repair and protect infrastructure.
This conversation is particularly US-centric, and the US can't have this kind of military, so it's not really a point that applies. I can imagine people wanting to join that kind of military, and then getting into the US military and discovering that's not really what they do.
posted by Merus at 7:48 PM on March 27, 2018 [5 favorites]
I'm pretty anti-military myself, but historically it seems that integrating different types of people into military service is one of the only ways to get working-class people to accept them.
posted by Jacqueline at 8:03 PM on March 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 8:03 PM on March 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
The problem here is that banning trans people from the military isn't really about banning us from the military, it's about reducing our ability to be engaged in civic life. If we take the bait and say, oh, but healthcare is more important, or ENDA is more important, we're just ceding ground and making it easier to exclude us from other, less objectionable institutions in the future. The right to participate in public life is the struggle to focus on, and unfortunately ensuring equal access to the military is a piece of that puzzle.
I would agree that the military is a symbolic choice on the right. I don't think most Republican politicians even believe their own grandstanding on the issue; they're doing it for their Evangelical base. But no one cared at all if we served or where we went to the bathroom a decade ago. It was all about gay marriage then, and now that they lost that battle, they need something new to focus on. These attacks put us on the defensive and we're not gaining any real ground. In some sense we're losing ground because of the increased visibility of our issues.
Anyway, we lost the chance to direct the narrative - Pritzker et al made it about the military instead of other issues, so that's the battle we're fighting. The time to strike would have been immediately after Obergefell, but Big Gay Inc. threw a Mission Accomplished! party and washed their hands of us until we were attacked. Hopefully the courts will overturn the new ban, but if we "win," we need to keep pushing and not declare "victory." It's not a victory to gain back something we'd already had.
(on reread, jeez. I swear I wasn't trying to make military puns)
posted by AFABulous at 8:12 PM on March 27, 2018 [11 favorites]
I would agree that the military is a symbolic choice on the right. I don't think most Republican politicians even believe their own grandstanding on the issue; they're doing it for their Evangelical base. But no one cared at all if we served or where we went to the bathroom a decade ago. It was all about gay marriage then, and now that they lost that battle, they need something new to focus on. These attacks put us on the defensive and we're not gaining any real ground. In some sense we're losing ground because of the increased visibility of our issues.
Anyway, we lost the chance to direct the narrative - Pritzker et al made it about the military instead of other issues, so that's the battle we're fighting. The time to strike would have been immediately after Obergefell, but Big Gay Inc. threw a Mission Accomplished! party and washed their hands of us until we were attacked. Hopefully the courts will overturn the new ban, but if we "win," we need to keep pushing and not declare "victory." It's not a victory to gain back something we'd already had.
(on reread, jeez. I swear I wasn't trying to make military puns)
posted by AFABulous at 8:12 PM on March 27, 2018 [11 favorites]
The Military ban is basically a test run. Never forget that. Anyone who thinks this process will stop with the military is naive on the level of "Oh if we give Germany the Sudetenland, they'll be content."
So, when they ban transgender people from the FBI and CIA? "Our time and energy is better spent fighting for more important things like healthcare and non-discrimination in employment." When transpeople are banned from the State Department and the rest of the civil service? "Our time and energy is better spent fighting for more important things like healthcare." And when they're banned from attending federally funded universities? "Let's not forget to fight for the IMPORTANT things."
And then when the administration expands it's ban from transpeople to LGB people? "Oh. Wow. I totally didn't see that coming. Oh well, are there any more important things we can fight for? Passports maybe?"
posted by happyroach at 8:44 PM on March 27, 2018 [14 favorites]
So, when they ban transgender people from the FBI and CIA? "Our time and energy is better spent fighting for more important things like healthcare and non-discrimination in employment." When transpeople are banned from the State Department and the rest of the civil service? "Our time and energy is better spent fighting for more important things like healthcare." And when they're banned from attending federally funded universities? "Let's not forget to fight for the IMPORTANT things."
And then when the administration expands it's ban from transpeople to LGB people? "Oh. Wow. I totally didn't see that coming. Oh well, are there any more important things we can fight for? Passports maybe?"
posted by happyroach at 8:44 PM on March 27, 2018 [14 favorites]
Anyway, we lost the chance to direct the narrative
Yep, this, and we don’t have any large political organizations — not the HRC, not the Democratic Party — who are willing to do the hard work of reframing it now. I am skeptical that will ever change.
posted by zebra at 8:55 PM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yep, this, and we don’t have any large political organizations — not the HRC, not the Democratic Party — who are willing to do the hard work of reframing it now. I am skeptical that will ever change.
posted by zebra at 8:55 PM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
When transpeople are banned from the State Department and the rest of the civil service?
First of all, it's trans people, with a space, we're not some alternative species of human. Second, the authors of the article are opposed to the military. Who is arguing that the state department and civil service itself is an immoral institution? I'm sure they're not fond of the State Department as it's currently run, but I doubt they think that working in civil service is in itself a moral failing. The entire reason I can get a passport with my correct gender printed on it is Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
Anyway, given all that, of course we'd fight such a ban. We can and should do more than one thing at a time.
Since so many comments in this thread are strawman arguments, here is an excerpt from the article I posted, emphasis mine:
First of all, it's trans people, with a space, we're not some alternative species of human. Second, the authors of the article are opposed to the military. Who is arguing that the state department and civil service itself is an immoral institution? I'm sure they're not fond of the State Department as it's currently run, but I doubt they think that working in civil service is in itself a moral failing. The entire reason I can get a passport with my correct gender printed on it is Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
Anyway, given all that, of course we'd fight such a ban. We can and should do more than one thing at a time.
Since so many comments in this thread are strawman arguments, here is an excerpt from the article I posted, emphasis mine:
It’s possible, of course, to say that, notwithstanding left political ideals about war and the military, trans people who wish to serve should be allowed to. But critics of inclusion aren’t saying they shouldn’t be allowed. We are simply pointing out that only focusing on inclusion means ignoring even more pressing problems, namely the death and violence wrought by the institution itself.posted by AFABulous at 10:13 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
Trans people do not belong to a political ideology.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:32 PM on March 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:32 PM on March 27, 2018 [3 favorites]
transpeople to LGB people
Please don't do this. Trans is an adjective. Just like it's LGB people, or gay people not gaypeople, it's trans people, not transpeople.
posted by Dysk at 10:45 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
Please don't do this. Trans is an adjective. Just like it's LGB people, or gay people not gaypeople, it's trans people, not transpeople.
posted by Dysk at 10:45 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
Trans people do not belong to a political ideology.
No, but our mere existence is an affront to one, which rather has us involved whether we like it or not.
posted by Dysk at 10:46 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
No, but our mere existence is an affront to one, which rather has us involved whether we like it or not.
posted by Dysk at 10:46 PM on March 27, 2018 [4 favorites]
happyroach's argument isn't a strawman, and issues with spaces non-withstanding its a very good one. Speaking as some one who is not cis and a Jew, she is directly paralleling the experiences of the Jews in Nazi Germany to trans people today. First they ban you from something that meh maybe you didn't want, and once that goes unchallenged suddenly you can't marry gentiles or own businesses that compete with them. We all know what comes next.
The point they are making is that while we as mostly left-wing people are fighting over whether or not we want to join the military or whether the military is good thing- they've already banned us- and now they'll ban us from other state stuff one after the other. We all know what comes next.
Yeah, we can care about more than one thing, but if we let them ban us from this, it will discredit us as non-people in the eyes of many, and suddenly it will be easier to ban us from much more. If we even think of ceding this ground we will lose much much more.
I care much more about that than a dropped space. Speaking as a "trans people".
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 10:49 PM on March 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
The point they are making is that while we as mostly left-wing people are fighting over whether or not we want to join the military or whether the military is good thing- they've already banned us- and now they'll ban us from other state stuff one after the other. We all know what comes next.
Yeah, we can care about more than one thing, but if we let them ban us from this, it will discredit us as non-people in the eyes of many, and suddenly it will be easier to ban us from much more. If we even think of ceding this ground we will lose much much more.
I care much more about that than a dropped space. Speaking as a "trans people".
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 10:49 PM on March 27, 2018 [9 favorites]
First they ban you from something that meh maybe you didn't want, and once that goes unchallenged suddenly you can't marry gentiles or own businesses that compete with them. We all know what comes next.
Except that wasn't what came first. ENDA predates it, for example. That was the time to fight, and a far more important fight to have.
I care much more about that than a dropped space. Speaking as a "trans people".
I care about both. I don't like being the subject of dehumanising language, however subtle and I don't enjoy having that preference mocked with purposeful bad grammar, either.
posted by Dysk at 10:52 PM on March 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
Except that wasn't what came first. ENDA predates it, for example. That was the time to fight, and a far more important fight to have.
I care much more about that than a dropped space. Speaking as a "trans people".
I care about both. I don't like being the subject of dehumanising language, however subtle and I don't enjoy having that preference mocked with purposeful bad grammar, either.
posted by Dysk at 10:52 PM on March 27, 2018 [6 favorites]
No, but our mere existence is an affront to one, which rather has us involved whether we like it or not.
I’ve dealt with plenty of white liberal feminist women who have taken utter shits on me, so no, don’t believe any particular political ideology is inherently better than another really. The degree of political separation between cis people in the US is not yet wide enough for me to cut it down the middle and assume all conservatives are bad and all democrats are good, especially considering that in Texas of all fucking places a Democratic State senator who misgendered me personally at a senate hearing and voted FOR an anti-trans bathroom bill had their vote stymied by a pro-business Republican who stood by the principles that bigotry was not welcome in Texas.
Politics at least where I’m from don’t divide cleanly by party.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:00 PM on March 27, 2018 [7 favorites]
I’ve dealt with plenty of white liberal feminist women who have taken utter shits on me, so no, don’t believe any particular political ideology is inherently better than another really. The degree of political separation between cis people in the US is not yet wide enough for me to cut it down the middle and assume all conservatives are bad and all democrats are good, especially considering that in Texas of all fucking places a Democratic State senator who misgendered me personally at a senate hearing and voted FOR an anti-trans bathroom bill had their vote stymied by a pro-business Republican who stood by the principles that bigotry was not welcome in Texas.
Politics at least where I’m from don’t divide cleanly by party.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:00 PM on March 27, 2018 [7 favorites]
I’ve dealt with plenty of white liberal feminist women who have taken utter shits on me, so no, don’t believe any particular political ideology is inherently better than another really.
Yeah, I should have specified perhaps that or existence is an affront to more than one political ideology. It's not simple left/right. What I'm trying to say is that there is only a limited extent to which you can remain uninvolved in politics as a trans person, when trans identities are so heavily politicised. You can no more be neutral in the face of TERFs or brocialists than evangelicals or Randroids when they're all baying for your blood (or basic rights) - merely being puts you on a side of those arguments.
posted by Dysk at 11:07 PM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I should have specified perhaps that or existence is an affront to more than one political ideology. It's not simple left/right. What I'm trying to say is that there is only a limited extent to which you can remain uninvolved in politics as a trans person, when trans identities are so heavily politicised. You can no more be neutral in the face of TERFs or brocialists than evangelicals or Randroids when they're all baying for your blood (or basic rights) - merely being puts you on a side of those arguments.
posted by Dysk at 11:07 PM on March 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
(Not that I'm sure how you got a "left good right bad" read from my comment -the ideology to which we are an affront is transphobia, not Republicanism or whatever.)
posted by Dysk at 11:09 PM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 11:09 PM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yeah I’m not neutral personally, nor am I advocating for trans people to be neutral. My personal position is that I don’t demand all trans people fall in line with my political leanings just because they are trans and I don’t expect “trans” to be a political monolith.
I personally am solidly leftist, but I’m also pragmatic enough to build coalitions depending on the time and place.
But yeah the arc of justice will favor progressives in the long run and I think on that timescale you and I are probably in total agreement.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:21 PM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
I personally am solidly leftist, but I’m also pragmatic enough to build coalitions depending on the time and place.
But yeah the arc of justice will favor progressives in the long run and I think on that timescale you and I are probably in total agreement.
posted by Annika Cicada at 11:21 PM on March 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
The question might be, is it worth paying for? Funding for Trans activism is shamefully low in many LGBT NGOs. Transphobia exists within and without.
posted by Brocktoon at 1:56 AM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 1:56 AM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
happyroach's argument isn't a strawman, and issues with spaces non-withstanding its a very good one.
I strongly disagree. It's got my blood boiling in a way that no one lecturing trans people about our "misplaced" priorities on Metafilter has done in a long time. It's a straw man, it's Godwinning the thread with Bonhoeffer, etc, etc.
posted by hoyland at 3:52 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
I strongly disagree. It's got my blood boiling in a way that no one lecturing trans people about our "misplaced" priorities on Metafilter has done in a long time. It's a straw man, it's Godwinning the thread with Bonhoeffer, etc, etc.
posted by hoyland at 3:52 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
frankly, right now im more afraid of the other slippery slope— where trans people used to be unrespectable poc drag queens, and we silenced them to make space for lgbtq trans people, and then trans liberals, and then the log cabin republicans, and now we have liberals arguing that trans ppl should sit on our hands and say nothing about the military or else we risk losing tenuous working class support that will probably never include most of us anyway. i mean, is your fictitious republican going to look at a hairy, nonpassing trans femme in the bathroom and think, "oh! she might be a veteran. i'd better not be terrible" and if so, why is that any more likely than some politician thinking, "oh! these trans people hate the military. i'd better not vote for this awful foreign policy that will inevitably kill many brown people"? i'm sick of liberals asking me to keep silent for a shadow of a glimmer of hope. we are who we pretend to be. if my perceived support for our racist military is the only reason you grant me rights, then i dont want them
posted by heterosoy at 4:11 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by heterosoy at 4:11 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
So, when they ban transgender people from the FBI and CIA?
Do you know how many awkward conversations I had at the end of grad school about security clearances? With people who'd simultaneously be trying to reassure me that one of few obvious non-academic career paths wasn't closed to me because I was trans, but who also knew damn well that when they finished grad school, some of their friends found that path closed because they were gay?
posted by hoyland at 4:13 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
Do you know how many awkward conversations I had at the end of grad school about security clearances? With people who'd simultaneously be trying to reassure me that one of few obvious non-academic career paths wasn't closed to me because I was trans, but who also knew damn well that when they finished grad school, some of their friends found that path closed because they were gay?
posted by hoyland at 4:13 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
The point is not that gays shouldn't have the right to get married or that marriage is inherently terrible. The point is that you shouldn't have to get married in order to access healthcare and other important rights.
I agree absolutely. That is a separate point, however, from whether or not people who do want to be married should be able to. Fortunately, we have decided that if you want to be married, you can be married.
This is just my opinion, but I think if your dream is to join an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, you should see a psychologist. Regardless of what gloss about honor and glory and protection and service you put on it, that's what a military is.
That is indeed just your opinion. Do you accept that there are people who do not share this opinion, and do you support their right to pursue a life according to their own values and goals? Or are you letting this opinion of yours dictate whether or not you support someone's attempts to achieve their goals?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:41 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
I agree absolutely. That is a separate point, however, from whether or not people who do want to be married should be able to. Fortunately, we have decided that if you want to be married, you can be married.
This is just my opinion, but I think if your dream is to join an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, you should see a psychologist. Regardless of what gloss about honor and glory and protection and service you put on it, that's what a military is.
That is indeed just your opinion. Do you accept that there are people who do not share this opinion, and do you support their right to pursue a life according to their own values and goals? Or are you letting this opinion of yours dictate whether or not you support someone's attempts to achieve their goals?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:41 AM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
That is a separate point, however, from whether or not people who do want to be married should be able to. Fortunately, we have decided that if you want to be married, you can be married.
It's not separate though. The prioritizing of marriage above all else is the issue, not the idea of marriage generally, just like the question is not "should trans people be allowed to serve openly in the military" but "would the world be a better place if Pritzker had decided to throw her money at (say) employment discrimination generally".
posted by hoyland at 5:11 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
It's not separate though. The prioritizing of marriage above all else is the issue, not the idea of marriage generally, just like the question is not "should trans people be allowed to serve openly in the military" but "would the world be a better place if Pritzker had decided to throw her money at (say) employment discrimination generally".
posted by hoyland at 5:11 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
That is indeed just your opinion. Do you accept that there are people who do not share this opinion, and do you support their right to pursue a life according to their own values and goals? Or are you letting this opinion of yours dictate whether or not you support someone's attempts to achieve their goals?
If someone's dream was to become part of an organized crime association that was known to kill and torture people, would you "support their right to pursue a life according to their own values and goals"? Do you support the right of people to join ISIS to "pursue a life according to their own values and goals"?
I know that that's an extreme comparison, but I intend it to be one. If it strikes you as extreme, then maybe ask yourself if you consider the lives of foreign people of color to be equal to those of white Westerners? You can argue about comparative levels of evil- and no, I don't think the US military is as bad as ISIS- but once you've reached the point of killing and torturing innocent civilians then no, I don't need to respect "your dream." We're not talking about becoming a pop star or even a billionaire banker here!
Again, I absolutely think trans people should be allowed to serve. I just think that if they're doing it because it's "their dream" I have absolutely no respect for them, just as I have no respect for women or Muslims or white cis men who do the same thing. To me the only legitimate reason to join such an obviously evil institution is because it represents the best way out of poverty, or it's the only way to get health care, or similar practical reasons- and we ought to fight to eliminate those reasons.
Until those reasons are eliminated, of course, we have to fight discrimination wherever it shows up. I just don't think we need to do it while saying, as one person said in the article, “War is a force that gives us meaning. War is a force that teaches us lessons of humanity and allows us to realize something about our society.” Fight for trans inclusion in the military, but don't fight for the military.
posted by perplexion at 7:34 AM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
If someone's dream was to become part of an organized crime association that was known to kill and torture people, would you "support their right to pursue a life according to their own values and goals"? Do you support the right of people to join ISIS to "pursue a life according to their own values and goals"?
I know that that's an extreme comparison, but I intend it to be one. If it strikes you as extreme, then maybe ask yourself if you consider the lives of foreign people of color to be equal to those of white Westerners? You can argue about comparative levels of evil- and no, I don't think the US military is as bad as ISIS- but once you've reached the point of killing and torturing innocent civilians then no, I don't need to respect "your dream." We're not talking about becoming a pop star or even a billionaire banker here!
Again, I absolutely think trans people should be allowed to serve. I just think that if they're doing it because it's "their dream" I have absolutely no respect for them, just as I have no respect for women or Muslims or white cis men who do the same thing. To me the only legitimate reason to join such an obviously evil institution is because it represents the best way out of poverty, or it's the only way to get health care, or similar practical reasons- and we ought to fight to eliminate those reasons.
Until those reasons are eliminated, of course, we have to fight discrimination wherever it shows up. I just don't think we need to do it while saying, as one person said in the article, “War is a force that gives us meaning. War is a force that teaches us lessons of humanity and allows us to realize something about our society.” Fight for trans inclusion in the military, but don't fight for the military.
posted by perplexion at 7:34 AM on March 28, 2018 [5 favorites]
Thank you to the trans people in this thread for providing insight and balance.
(Maybe I assume it's clear and it's not - I am a trans guy.)
posted by AFABulous at 7:41 AM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
(Maybe I assume it's clear and it's not - I am a trans guy.)
posted by AFABulous at 7:41 AM on March 28, 2018 [3 favorites]
I know that that's an extreme comparison, but I intend it to be one. If it strikes you as extreme, then maybe ask yourself if you consider the lives of foreign people of color to be equal to those of white Westerners? You can argue about comparative levels of evil- and no, I don't think the US military is as bad as ISIS- but once you've reached the point of killing and torturing innocent civilians then no, I don't need to respect "your dream."
You are correct to be outraged at how our military has been used to kill and torture the innocent. I am as well. Your reaction, however, is being directed in the wrong place.
You will note that I said that our military has been used to kill and torture the innocent, as opposed to saying that the military is killing and torturing the innocent. The military serves at the direction of the President and the Congress. They are the ones that should be held accountable for the actions you are decrying - not the footsoldier with the high moral compass who wants a chance to serve but can't because of an arbitrary decision by that same president.
Until those reasons are eliminated, of course, we have to fight discrimination wherever it shows up. I just don't think we need to do it while saying, as one person said in the article, “War is a force that gives us meaning. War is a force that teaches us lessons of humanity and allows us to realize something about our society.” Fight for trans inclusion in the military, but don't fight for the military.
No one is saying that you have to fight "for" the military in order to fight for trans inclusion in the military. However, fighting for trans inclusion in the military in one breath but then saying basically that "but the military is chocolate-dipped evil" in the next.....well, it doesn't help all that much, at the very least.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
You are correct to be outraged at how our military has been used to kill and torture the innocent. I am as well. Your reaction, however, is being directed in the wrong place.
You will note that I said that our military has been used to kill and torture the innocent, as opposed to saying that the military is killing and torturing the innocent. The military serves at the direction of the President and the Congress. They are the ones that should be held accountable for the actions you are decrying - not the footsoldier with the high moral compass who wants a chance to serve but can't because of an arbitrary decision by that same president.
Until those reasons are eliminated, of course, we have to fight discrimination wherever it shows up. I just don't think we need to do it while saying, as one person said in the article, “War is a force that gives us meaning. War is a force that teaches us lessons of humanity and allows us to realize something about our society.” Fight for trans inclusion in the military, but don't fight for the military.
No one is saying that you have to fight "for" the military in order to fight for trans inclusion in the military. However, fighting for trans inclusion in the military in one breath but then saying basically that "but the military is chocolate-dipped evil" in the next.....well, it doesn't help all that much, at the very least.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
Please don't do this. Trans is an adjective. Just like it's LGB people,
My apologies, I did not mean to give offense - not in that anyway. I had been given some bad information in the past. I will ask the mods if it can be changed.
I will stand by my general point- limiting participation as a citizen based on the argument "Oh that institution is evil" is appeasement of the social conservatives. And they WILL NOT STOP. Not until they get a society that looks like the mid 19th century.
Any argument that progress is inevitable and cannot be withdrawn, is simply wrong.
posted by happyroach at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
My apologies, I did not mean to give offense - not in that anyway. I had been given some bad information in the past. I will ask the mods if it can be changed.
I will stand by my general point- limiting participation as a citizen based on the argument "Oh that institution is evil" is appeasement of the social conservatives. And they WILL NOT STOP. Not until they get a society that looks like the mid 19th century.
Any argument that progress is inevitable and cannot be withdrawn, is simply wrong.
posted by happyroach at 9:10 AM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
At worst, it may give outsiders the impression that your support for trans rights is conditional.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:11 AM on March 28, 2018
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:11 AM on March 28, 2018
Any argument that progress is inevitable and cannot be withdrawn, is simply wrong.
Remember that you're telling this to trans people. You know, the people who've seen guarantees about their access to healthcare yanked away by this administration, who rushed to change passports because they didn't know what would happen to the policy. Remember that we are in the room and don't patronize us.
posted by hoyland at 9:20 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
Remember that you're telling this to trans people. You know, the people who've seen guarantees about their access to healthcare yanked away by this administration, who rushed to change passports because they didn't know what would happen to the policy. Remember that we are in the room and don't patronize us.
posted by hoyland at 9:20 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
Mod note: On the 'trans person' correction - happyroach asked to change it retroactively, which is a creditable request, but we generally don't change stuff in that way if there's subsequent correction/discussion in the thread that would need to be removed in consequence. So officially noting here: yes, do add that space, and thanks for people offering that correction, and thanks for happyroach receiving it in the right spirit.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:39 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:39 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
This is just my opinion, but I think if your dream is to join an organization whose sole purpose is to kill people, you should see a psychologist. Regardless of what gloss about honor and glory and protection and service you put on it, that's what a military is.
This is a very metafilter take, and one that is not shared by a majority of people in the larger culture, even among pacifists. I'm not remotely pro-military, but this seems needlessly reductive.
Plenty (maybe even most?) of people in the military have never had to kill anyone. Plenty of people have joined the military believing in the mythical promise of glory and protection and don't figure out that it was a recruitment scam until it is too late for them to do anything. Lots of people have been able to escape transphobic families and towns where they would have otherwise been in great danger. Plenty of people have joined the military to become doctors or nurses. The Coast Guard is a branch of the military. The US Public Health Service is a branch of the military.
Will trans vets still have access to their medical care? To their pensions? Will their spouses and children? How many of them have PTSD and serious injuries and are facing the sudden cessation of access to treatment? How many of them just got a cancer diagnosis at the age of 55 and are now facing the possibility of having no insurance, depending on how far this administration wants to take their campaign of hate? Will blocking trans citizens from access to free or reimbursed tuition worsen educational, income, and health disparities? What about trans vets who were drafted and never had the chance to make a choice about it? Do we really think the Tr*mp administration is going to make wise and empathetic decisions one every one of these points?
The question isn't just "should an 18-year old trans person be allowed to join the military (and is that a moral choice)." The question is also about how many forms of this cruelty this decision could possibly take over the next few months, the next few years.
"given the brutal history of United States military action, we also have to ask important questions about the meaning of participating in unjust institutions. Singling out the issue of inclusion without examining the institution itself produces morally incoherent stances"
Similarly, I think the article assumes that people who join the military do so from a position of historical wokeness and subsequent sadism, rather than from the position of lifetimes of mandatory propaganda consumption. General knowledge of the atrocities perpetrated by the US military is shockingly low (IME), and pretending that most people join the organization with that knowledge already in hand is disingenuous.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:54 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
This is a very metafilter take, and one that is not shared by a majority of people in the larger culture, even among pacifists. I'm not remotely pro-military, but this seems needlessly reductive.
Plenty (maybe even most?) of people in the military have never had to kill anyone. Plenty of people have joined the military believing in the mythical promise of glory and protection and don't figure out that it was a recruitment scam until it is too late for them to do anything. Lots of people have been able to escape transphobic families and towns where they would have otherwise been in great danger. Plenty of people have joined the military to become doctors or nurses. The Coast Guard is a branch of the military. The US Public Health Service is a branch of the military.
Will trans vets still have access to their medical care? To their pensions? Will their spouses and children? How many of them have PTSD and serious injuries and are facing the sudden cessation of access to treatment? How many of them just got a cancer diagnosis at the age of 55 and are now facing the possibility of having no insurance, depending on how far this administration wants to take their campaign of hate? Will blocking trans citizens from access to free or reimbursed tuition worsen educational, income, and health disparities? What about trans vets who were drafted and never had the chance to make a choice about it? Do we really think the Tr*mp administration is going to make wise and empathetic decisions one every one of these points?
The question isn't just "should an 18-year old trans person be allowed to join the military (and is that a moral choice)." The question is also about how many forms of this cruelty this decision could possibly take over the next few months, the next few years.
"given the brutal history of United States military action, we also have to ask important questions about the meaning of participating in unjust institutions. Singling out the issue of inclusion without examining the institution itself produces morally incoherent stances"
Similarly, I think the article assumes that people who join the military do so from a position of historical wokeness and subsequent sadism, rather than from the position of lifetimes of mandatory propaganda consumption. General knowledge of the atrocities perpetrated by the US military is shockingly low (IME), and pretending that most people join the organization with that knowledge already in hand is disingenuous.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:54 AM on March 28, 2018 [6 favorites]
Will trans vets still have access to their medical care? To their pensions? Will their spouses and children?
You'd hope yes. "You can't serve" doesn't change whether or not somebody did.
posted by Dysk at 11:07 AM on March 28, 2018
You'd hope yes. "You can't serve" doesn't change whether or not somebody did.
posted by Dysk at 11:07 AM on March 28, 2018
Will trans vets still have access to their medical care?
lol you think they have this now?
posted by AFABulous at 11:34 AM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
lol you think they have this now?
posted by AFABulous at 11:34 AM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Source - American Medical Association. For clarity, I'm not saying they'll be refused at a VA hospital emergency room. But surgery is critically important for many transgender people. I'm confident I would be dead without it.
posted by AFABulous at 11:44 AM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by AFABulous at 11:44 AM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Will trans vets still have access to their medical care?
lol you think they have this now?
The issue of whether the VA covers SRS is definitely a real one, but I think it is also worth noting that VA actually a lot more trans-related care than people are aware of, and has been trying pretty hard to expand healthcare access for trans combat vets, trans disabled vets, and low-income trans vets, which may be affected by the new policy or a new direction to restrict medical care by trans vets. Currently, per the article:
posted by corb at 12:22 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
lol you think they have this now?
The issue of whether the VA covers SRS is definitely a real one, but I think it is also worth noting that VA actually a lot more trans-related care than people are aware of, and has been trying pretty hard to expand healthcare access for trans combat vets, trans disabled vets, and low-income trans vets, which may be affected by the new policy or a new direction to restrict medical care by trans vets. Currently, per the article:
The AMA amicus brief notes that the VA covers all medically necessary care for transgender veterans except SRS. The brief quotes Dr. Shulkin’s Nov. 10 letters stating how VA services for transgender veterans include hormonal therapy, mental health care, preoperative evaluation and medically necessary postoperative and long-term care following SRS.I know also that in the PNW at least, the care also includes voice coaching, which I know can cost a lot of money if you need to pay for it civilian-side. I'm not sure if that is available nationwide, just that I see the advertisements for it when I visit the VA hospital.
posted by corb at 12:22 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
lol you think they have this now?
Do I think they have the level of care that they deserve and that is medically necessary? No, of course not.
But the Fulcher and Silva lawsuit you is effectively furthering the momentum of previous initiatives to increase access to care for trans vets, policies which had already been formally adopted by the DoD, and the thought of those policies and initiatives being erased instead of expanded and improved is pretty grim. The DoD was working with the HRC to provide training for culturally competent care providers (sorely lacking in most health systems, not just the VHA), and the specter of shutting it all down and deleting all these resources and moving from "backward" to "much, much further backward" is even more terrible.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:36 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Do I think they have the level of care that they deserve and that is medically necessary? No, of course not.
But the Fulcher and Silva lawsuit you is effectively furthering the momentum of previous initiatives to increase access to care for trans vets, policies which had already been formally adopted by the DoD, and the thought of those policies and initiatives being erased instead of expanded and improved is pretty grim. The DoD was working with the HRC to provide training for culturally competent care providers (sorely lacking in most health systems, not just the VHA), and the specter of shutting it all down and deleting all these resources and moving from "backward" to "much, much further backward" is even more terrible.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:36 PM on March 28, 2018 [1 favorite]
Thank you for posting this, AFABulous. This has been weighing on my mind a lot lately, as I know it has for a lot of people. I always have a hard time squaring my very anti-military views with this, but I think for me it comes down to what zebra said--I just can't help but keep thinking of how it's about chipping away at our ability to exist in public, in a big, showy way that a lot of people in the US care about, even if in a vacuum I hate it.
I hate everything about this, and there's not really any way around it, or to comfortably reconcile it all with my conscience and my sense of self. But the opinions and experiences of other trans folks are valuable and I'm really grateful for this discussion. Thank you.
posted by elsilnora at 6:01 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
I hate everything about this, and there's not really any way around it, or to comfortably reconcile it all with my conscience and my sense of self. But the opinions and experiences of other trans folks are valuable and I'm really grateful for this discussion. Thank you.
posted by elsilnora at 6:01 PM on March 28, 2018 [2 favorites]
This is one of few instances where I approve of a leveling-down approach to equality: ban everyone from serving in the military.
posted by Dysk at 8:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 8:17 PM on March 28, 2018 [4 favorites]
« Older “...a genre plagued by poor adaptations. ” | Bleeding Out Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Can you imagine if we had an actual trans-inclusive federal employment non-discrimination act? I wonder if it would prevent a hateful manbaby of a president from banning people from serving in the military?
posted by elsietheeel at 5:01 PM on March 27, 2018 [7 favorites]