We Don't Need to Erase Differences to Gain Acceptance

Finally, I believe the idea of gender performativity is inherently transphobic, at least to some extent. Firstly, it is simply incompatible with the trans community's long standing belief that gender identity is innate. Under gender performativity, a person is always, simply the gender that they are performing. Therefore, a trans person, before their social transition, is of their birth gender. Furthermore, there is nothing more to social transition than to take on another performance. Given that it is all a performance, there is nothing 'authentic' about either gender performance. Hence this could also imply that transition is no more than a lifestyle choice. This is why I believe that gender performativity is inherently transphobic, even if the people promoting this idea may not be transphobic themselves.

We Don't Need to Erase Differences to Gain Acceptance

I want to explore the likely historical motivations of queer theory-based activism, and why the experience of the past two decades has proven these motivations to be misguided.

Queer theory is a set of philosophical theories about gender and sexuality that is rooted in the idea that both gender (male and female) and categories of sexuality (e.g. straight, gay and bi) are entirely socially constructed. According to

30

queer theory, the deconstruction of these categories is key to liberation of humanity, especially LGBT people. I have previously criticized this view, on the grounds that the total denial of stable identity categories ultimately denies LGBT people a clear and understandable identity. This makes us less able to effectively promote understanding and argue for acceptance in wider society. My concern is that queer theory-based LGBT activism essentially makes LGBT identities not understandable for mainstream society, which I strongly believe is bad for us.

I think that, to understand where queer theory-based LGBT activism is coming from, and why it is so ill-suited to the needs of LGBT people today, we need to understand its historical context. Queer theory was born in the 1980s-90s, and was highly influenced by postmodern thinkers (particularly Michel Foucault) who wrote their works even earlier. Thus, the historical context in which queer theory arose was one that was highly hostile to all things LGBT. You have to remember that, for example, homosexuality remained an offense in parts of America until 2003. Even outside America, things weren't much better, with parts of Europe and Australia banning homosexuality well into the 1990s. Until quite recently, LGBT acceptance was often a very difficult and hopeless campaign.

It was in this context that the queer theory idea of erasing the distinction between 'categories' of sexuality like straight and gay looked like the way forward for some. This was to be

31

done by promoting a variety of philosophical theories and practices to 'deconstruct' gender. I think the logic is basically that, if there was no difference between male and female, it would logically follow that there was no difference between straight and gay, and any discriminatory laws and practices would become untenable. Of course, back in the homophobic 1990s, those interested in anything 'queer' were in the very small minority, and queer theory did not have any impact on wider society. Still, the idea lived on.

Meanwhile, the history of the past two decades has shown us that LGBT acceptance can come about, even without erasing differences that are scientifically established as well as objectively evident. Today, more than 60% of the population in most Western countries support gay marriage. The fundamental difference between male and female, and hence between straight and gay, is still widely acknowledged, yet this has not hindered the acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships at all. In other words, there was no need to erase our differences all along, they simply needed to be accepted. Promoting understanding, not erasing differences, is the key to LGBT acceptance.

In a way, queer theory-based activism has a similar difference-denying mentality to the 'stealth model' that was historically standard for trans people, and both were ultimately rooted in the same unaccepting social context. The difference was mainly that the 'stealth model' required only effort from the trans person, and some cooperation from

32

government policies. Therefore, the 'stealth model' was at least sustainable until there was widespread awareness of trans people. On the other hand, the queer theory model would require a very fundamental change in the worldview and culture of the whole society. Moreover, the queer theory model would also require widespread challenge to established science to succeed. This, I believe, is the biggest fault in the queer theory model.

Anyway, the point is, the aforementioned models of LGBT identity only make sense if one believed that the unaccepting social context couldn't be fundamentally changed. And history has already proven this to be wrong. Therefore, I think it's time we moved on from a difference-denying mentality, towards a truly open and proud mentality.

p.s. I know that queer theory is 'anti-assimilationist'. However, this does not negate the difference-denying psychology at its core. From what I see, the 'antiassimilationism' is basically a reflection of the belief that authentic LGBT integration into the current mainstream is impossible, which is actually consistent with its differencedenying utopianism. Also, throughout history, the 'antiassimilationists' were often not as brave as the 'assimilationists' in actually challenging the status quo.

33