The complexities in this situation keep unfolding. Much food for thought and many questions come to mind as the discussion unfolds.
How anything is interpreted is based a lot on how it is introduced. The name of this thread is such that it skews one's thinking of its intent into a certain area of thought.
The media does the same kind of playing with words to make or create a snippet to pique readers attention. The actual story may or may not bear any resemblance to the title, nor supply enough accurate facts to justify the title.
Much is unknown here. Thus, being human, we try to fill in the blanks based on our own perceptions and bias and needs.
Dapper has been very clear in reiterating the "actions" Jacki took and continues to take. The actions may indicate one thing. However, when you factor in the use of the pronoun she and the title of wife, it gets confusing.
We are a community which prides itself on diversity. We are BIG on diversity. Yet, in action, like in this situation, our definition of diversity indicates we have a much narrower view on what diversity is and what it should look like.
The suggestion has been made that this couple had other choices. One of those choices was to "take the easy route" and move to a state that recognizes same sex marriage. The overall goal of the actions here was to have the same rights and privileges as are automatically granted to hetero marriages.
Same sex marriage, even where legal, does not do this. We still have to fight for these rights and privileges. We still have to depend on politicians to foster equality into the laws. And, we have to hope the political tide doesnt shift and work to undo what has already been done. Think the republican war on women.
The other suggestion was this couple should have waited until the same sex marriage issue was resolved in their state. Same problem arises. The marriage laws are not applied equally thus waiting solves nothing.
Personally, I have a bias in situations like this when one group with privilege tells another without privilege, they just have to wait. It brings me back to the 1800's when the slaves were fighting for freedom and women were fighting for the right to vote. They teamed up and spoke to each other bonds of slavery as their common ground. Yet, when the right to vote was on the table for emancipated men of color, and the suffragettes begged them to fight for the inclusion of women in this bill, it was Frederick Douglass who told women "they would have to wait their turn". Their turn came 100 years later. Male privilege trumped a common cause.
That leads to my next point. I am hearing it said in different ways how this couples journey trivializes the personal/legal/medical journey of trans persons. I dont see this but I am also not a trans person and may not understand the intricacies involved.
What I do find myself wondering, is if there is an issue of trivializing the trans process or if it is more a case of trivializing the outcome. That male marker is the validation of male/man/manhood and all the rights and privileges that go along with that status.
So, is this couple trivializing the trans journey or are they challenging the definition of manhood and all the perks that come along with the marker?
Does someone who has changed their marker but not their pronoun undermine the concept of male? Does someone who has changed their marker but is still comfortable using the title of wife, undermine the concept of husband?
Is the issue perhaps that this couple, in not providing answers one way or another, is really:
1. living proof of what diversity really looks like?
2. forcing us to look at our own biases and prejudices?
3. a reminder that we do not have to reinvent the wheel for change to occur?
4. walk the talk is an action not a philosophy?
Much to ponder.
|