Misinterpreting The LGBTQ+ Community

 

Legal battles have always been a primary focus for media outlets to discuss the LGBTQ+ movement publicly. From cases of lawsuits concerning bakeries, dress shops, venues, and churches refusing their marital services to queer couples; to cases of trans discrimination in the army corps and the refusal to allow trans men and women to serve; to female sprinters in the Olympics being forced to compete in men’s events due to ‘biological advantages’ such as high testosterone (with specifically more masculine presenting, queer women of color)- these are things that most of us have heard of before, with the portrayal of the community fighting these legal battles varying throughout the news media. And yet, a Conversation article claims that the motives of the LGBT+ community revolve around achieving heterosexual ‘normality’- “the end goal… remains the pursuit of aspirations sanctioned by a heterosexual regime.”(Kapur) To simplify the current advances and fights of the LGBTQ+ to marriage laws feels very irresponsible of this article, such as saying that “same-sex marriage becomes the ultimate validation of LGBT advocacy”(Kapur). Her explanation of the community could be adapted to diversify the wants of the community, and also to recognize the numerous causes the community has suffered and worked hard to achieve.

The article begins with introducing those who identify with the LGBT+ label as so:

“…persecuted sexual minorities [that]  have suffered the most egregious forms of discrimination, harassment and violence based on gender identity, sexual orientation or preference. They have been considered less human and at times even non-human. Their lives when lost, have often been thought unworthy of being mourned.” (Kapur)

This aspect of Kapur’s definition is something I do agree is an accurate depiction of persons identifying with the LGBT+ label; as homophobia and transphobia remain rampant in our current time and still impact queer and trans folk all around the globe. Kapur even goes so far as to recognize the fact that the dehumanization of those who identify with the queer community is the driving motivator for the push to recieve equal rights and be reognized as human. She then shifts her tone entirely into the whole idea that the community has focused on marriage laws for so long that it’s become a problem. That the best thing for the community isn’t to reinforce a heteronormative society by fighting for the right to lead ‘normal’ lives. She neglects to mention the various other causes being fought by the community to date, however. A recent case that is one of many is the case of South African Olympic sprinter Caster Semenya, a queer woman of color fighting against a new ruling that forces female-identifying runners to undergo testosterone tests (AP News). The testing doesn’t force everyone, though- just women that give the visual impression of ‘too much’ masculinity. And interestingly enough, it has been exclusively queer women of color that have been subjected to this testing, because they aren’t the westernized vision of femininity and what a woman looks like. In the words of the testers themselves: In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld proposed rules issued by track’s governing body, the IAAF, saying that they are discriminatory but that “such discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means” of “preserving the integrity of female athletics.”(AP News) This has been something the community has been fighting to change for years, since discriminatory testing such as these had occurred in the 60’s, and yet she fails to include it; to portray a biased perspective of the community that would uphold her points in the article.

 Another issue with Kapur’s article is the insinuation that to fight for marriage rights for queer couples is to support a heteronormative narrative that suggests that to be content one must have a ‘normal’ family structure, in which parents are married and idealy a child is involved. This convolutes the whole issue into something it isn’t; because the point isn’t to achieve the ultimate normality in a heteronormative society. A case in Kentucky demonstrates the whole reason why we need to fight for this- a county clerk in a courthouse refusing to give a gay couple their marraige license in a demonstration of their rights, and the pushback of the community on that church. The case successfully passed through court and ultimately went in favor of the couple and other same sex couples who had been denied a marraige license by the clerk.

“On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we’re pleased that same-sex couples can fully realize legal recognition of their love, including in Rowan County, Kentucky…” 

The point of fights like these is to try to convince the world that queer folk are equals to those who are granted marriage and the right to have children, equals who deserve to have the same choices as their counterparts. It’s not about marriage and normality being the end goal, it’s about having the right to choose whether you want to or not. Portraying the motivation behind gaining marriage rights in this light was incredibly simplified and misleading to potential readers. 

In summary, Kapur does successfully address some of the defining characteristics of the LGBT+  community. She however fails to thoroughly contextualize the efforts of the community, and leaves much out in order to fit the narrative of her article. An adjustment to include these cases and to provide a better understanding of the motivations behind the community would improve the definition she provided by tenfold.

Cited Sources

Barnes, Robert. “Supreme Court Passes on Case Involving Baker Who Refused to Make Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 17 June 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-passes-on-new-case-involving-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake/2019/06/17/f78c5ae0-7a71-11e9-a5b3-34f3edf1351e_story.html.

Dunbar, Graham. “Olympic Runner Semenya Loses Fight over Testosterone Rules.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 1 May 2019, apnews.com/543c78d943144874a661f31e88c1f8e6.

Kapur, Ratna. “There’s a Problem with the LGBT Rights Movement – It’s Limiting Freedom.” The Conversation, 28 June 2019, theconversation.com/theres-a-problem-with-the-lgbt-rights-movement-its-limiting-freedom-101999.

Palmer, Ewan. “Wedding Dress Designer Refuses to Make Garment for Lesbian Couple: ‘It Goes against My Faith.’” Newsweek, Newsweek, 11 July 2019, www.newsweek.com/lesbian-couple-refused-wedding-dress-1448689.

Reuters. “Kentucky Clerk Who Refused Gay Marriage Licenses Can Be Sued.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 26 Aug. 2019, www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/kentucky-clerk-who-refused-gay-marriage-licenses-can-be-sued-n1046306.