advice on "GLBT" paper please!

[daddysambiguity]

God. I have myself in a mess.

I am writing my Rhetoric paper on two competing discourses that have been identified to be present in the "GLBT" community or whatever. I'm looking at a rhetoric of assimilation vs. one of liberation

To help me with this, I will provide you with this quick, rough overview in case you don't know:

Assimilationists

Comments

no apology needed! :)

[daddysambiguity]

Yeah, the dichotomy is simplistic, I agree. It's the one I 'm using, though, because it's the one identified in the literature.

Also, keep in mind that the bullet list does not include the pros and cons of each side. :) It only includes the primary assertions of each group.

It so happens that a lot of the scholarship does address the practical implications involved. The assimilationist approach is much, much more successful than any kind of liberationist approach has been or, honestly, probably ever would be. So in terms of, you know, gaining acceptance for mainstream gays and lesbians and protecting folks from discrimination, it's very useful and that shouldn't be ignored.

Marriage rights are important on a day-to-day basis, for instance. I agree with you. It is probably one reason that Jimmy and I may end up getting legally married (I want him to have health insurance through my work). That's the system we have in place and that some are excluded while other are not is problematic. Many of the articles I've found argue that, while the current system is the way it is, we must work within that system -- at least initially -- if we have hopes of ever changing it or making any kind of social/political progress at all. At the same time, though, this is the same argument that was used to advocate cutting trans people from the original ENDA bill, so I can see that it's useful at the same time as it can be troublesome. I have no answers! :)

Regarding your second point, I again agree. I am not sure where you got the idea that those who consider themselves part of a liberationist movement can't also be guilty of exclusionary practices. I'm sure they'd argue that they aren't (as do most all people!) The primary thing is that they accuse assimilationists of being exclusionary -- this doesn't mean that they aren't or cannot be as well.

Also did not mean to imply one's take on sexual orientation relates to anti-racism. I am not really sure that which camp one falls into (if either) influences that strongly the degree to which they do or do not attempt to be anti-racist, or are or are not outwardly reacist. It's like I mentioned above: they accuse assimilationists of ignoring the needs of certain communities, but it doesn't mean that they don't also do that or that they are actually anti-racist.

I do think though that, in the US at least, that liberationists are right in that there is a real lack of attention paid to the hardships suffered by the most marginalized members of the GLBTetc. communities on the part of mainstream, dominant gay rights groups.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts as well as the others here! It's helping me think through a lot of things. :)

Feel free to give me more thoughts if you have them!

Re: no apology needed! :)

[amphibian23]

I see your point more now (though I certainly think there is a good deal of overlap

Political revolutionaries always need a reminder that they aren't always good at being everything to everyone.