Main Menu
Resources
Projects
© Intersex Initiative
Unless otherwise indicated, you may copy, reprint, distribute, and even modify contents of this web site under the Creative Commons license.
This is the keynote speech presented at Transcending Boundaries conference in New Haven, Connecticut on October 21, 2001. The theme of the conference was about bisexual, trans and intersex activists working together.
First of all, I'd like to thank the organizing committee for hosting this groundbreaking conference and for providing me this opportunity to speak at this concluding plenary session.
This conference is about alliance. It's about how we, as bisexual, trans, intersex, all of the above and more, can work together to increase visibility, transform institutions, and enhance our lives.
I want to start off my spiel by talking about how bisexual, trans and intersex politics emerged within the broader so-called GLBT (and sometimes I) movement and why it was necessary, or to put it more bluntly, what was wrong with the single-issue identity politics of the "gay movement."
A common misperception about what is wrong with identity politics is that it is wrong because it excludes people who stand on the side of privilege. For example, feminism has been criticized as anti-male, and gay movement has been said to promote "special rights" over heterosexuals. These are not legitimate critiques of identity politics, because the whole point of having a movement is to empower groups with significant social, political and economic disadvantage.
The true reason single-issue identity politics is flawed is not that it excludes those in power--like men, white people, heterosexuals, the rich--but that it inherently reinforces the invisibilization and marginalization of people with multiple or mixed identities or backgrounds both within the movement and in the society.
I witnessed this effect of single-issue politics the last time I visited Yale University, which was in April this year. I had been invited by Yale Women's Center to speak about third wave feminisms, so I took that opportunity to look around the campus and get to know people.
What happened was this: Yale University's GLBT student organization had just held a week of events celebrating queer lives and issues. The problem was that almost all of presenters featured had been white, with little multi-racial or multi-cultural representation, reinforcing the myth that all queers are white. The group of queer people of color protested how it happened, and while the white organizers of the week acknowledged that racism may have played part in it, they also blamed queer people of color for not attending meetings and giving their input.
The discussion went on and on without any concrete proposals to resolve the problem, so I asked them if they could have a weekly anti-racism training groups for white members of the group. Now, I didn't really expect that this would fly, and it didn't: white members complained that they were already extremely busy and there is no way they could fit another meeting to their schedule.
And that was my point: because of racism, queer students of color have to spend another hour, perhaps many more hours, every week in meetings and in personal support in addition to everything else white students do, and cannot be expected, realistically, to attend the GLBT meetings as much as white people do, unless of course white people also agree to spend certain amount of time every week dealing with the issue of racism.
What this shows is that any movement that only addresses one issue, in this case GLBT--but mostly gay and lesbian, is bound to represent the interests of those who only have to deal with that one issue. In other words, if you go to feminism, you have white straight women in the leadership; if you go to gay activism, you will find white gay men; and in anti-racism, you will see that straight men of color lead the groups.
So if you are like me, a fat Asian chick hooker intersexed genderqueer bi-dyke with disabilities, you are out of luck. Because movements are so segmented, I would have to do more work than anybody else without gaining the recognition for the total of work that I do.
This would mean that the leadership of each of these movement would be made up of people who address only one issue, which will most likely result, for example, in the "gay" agenda that fails to recognize that factors such as race, class, gender, and nationality impact varied ways we experience homophobia.
This hold true not only for people with multiple identities, but also for people with mixed identities or backgrounds, which is the theme of this conference. We all know how bisexual people are asked by gay and lesbian activists to support same-sex marriage or domestic partnership registry, and yet given cold shoulder if we decide to date a partner of a different sex. Or how both bisexual and transsexual people are accused of exercising internalized homophobia for merely being true to who we are. Bisexual and trans people have been told that we are, or our partners are, not part of the "community" and are un-welcome at some of the events.
But what about intersex people? How do intersex people experience our "inclusion" in the greater GLBT movement? What are the problems, and how can it become a true inclusion, rather than just inclusion in the name?
A trans activist from New York City contacted ISNA about the proposed city ordinance designed to prohibit the discrimination against trans people. She asked us how to word the ordinance to include intersex people. But the protection from discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation is extremely inadequate to defend intersex people's civil rights, because much of the violation of our civil rights take place in other areas.
Two years ago, the president of the National PFLAG gave a speech in which he mentioned the existence of intersex people. He said that because there are people who are physically neither completely male nor completely female, heterosexuality cannot possibly be the only "natural" sexual options. Such use of intersex existence objectifies intersex people, and does not help the intersex movement.
A group for "female-assigned gender-variant" people in Portland conducted a survey about their experience with health professionals last year. The survey specifically included "intersex" as one of the groups asked to participate, and yet did not have any question related to intersex issues. Apparently, they intended to only include intersex people who are transitioning from female-to-male.
A gay and lesbian group in San Jose contacted Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) this summer, asking us to do a presentation about the biological basis of sexes. They felt that it was necessary to know about biology in order to help intersex movement, but that would not have helped us. What we are dealing with here is civil rights, and it is not necessary to understand the biological basis for sex to advocate for intersex people any more than it is necessary to understand the biological basis of skin color to fight against racism.
A trans group in San Francisco distributed a "definition list" which included the explanation of "intersex" and how we are surgically operated on routinely. It talked about how horrible it is that doctors often get the gender identity of the child wrong, as if that is the only problem with the mutilation of children's genitals.
A GLBT political lobbying group surveyed candidates' positions on sexual minority issues for the election last year. The question asked whether or not the candidate would agree that intersex people should be labeled as neither male nor female, even though this is not the position taken by many intersex activists including ISNA. We believe that everybody, not just intersex people, should have the right to determine her or his gender, be it male, female, or anything else. We oppose using genital shapes to dictate one's gender rather than allowing each individual to decide for herself or himself.
These are just anecdotes, but I think they demonstrate the danger of collapsing gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans and intersex experiences into a single set of pre-defined agenda.
We frequently hear that bisexual, trans and intersex people are "natural allies" because we all share victimization from the dualistic view of sex, gender and sexuality. We all share the sense of being a "minority within the minority."
But I am here to say that, no, we are not "natural allies." Not only that, I'm willing to say that a bisexual person is not necessarily a "natural ally" to other bisexuals, and a trans person is not necessarily a "natural ally" to other trans people, and an intersex person is not necessarily a "natural ally" to other intersex people. To suggest that any of us are "natural allies" to one another erases the specificity of our multiple and mixed identities and backgrounds.
If we are not "natural allies," then, we need to work at it in order to build alliances. We need to actively listen and learn from each other, and be willing to celebrate our differences as much as our commonalities. We need to honor the leadership of each unique individuals to set priorities and agenda on issues that matter to us.
So, as the first act of such alliance building, I would like to ask everyone: will you stand for me, so that I can stand for you?
Thank you.