Definition of Gay Rights

By: Jim Andris

Gay rights activists have a difficult field to talk about, and the very language they struggle with illustrates this point. I have opted to use the term "gay rights" to describe the field of discussion, but to broadly define that term to include homosexual, bisexual, trans-gendered, and transsexual persons. I am indebted to Liz Winfield for talking through these matters of terminology with me. The purpose of this article is to expose the reasoning and the values behind such a choice.

To being with, a generic term must be simple to use, and not require a lengthy enumeration of subcategories, if only to facilitate discussion. A generic term must also have broad currency and a relatively clear designation in the public mind. This immediately limits the field to the words homosexual, gay, and queer. I have eliminated the phrase homosexual rights because a) it has a clinical association, b) it focuses gay concerns too narrowly on sexuality, and c) it eliminates the groups of bisexual, trans-gendered and transsexual persons, who suffer from similar, but unique forms of discrimination needing protection.

The word "queer" shares with the word "gay" simplicity and the definition of a continuum inclusive of bisexual, trans-gendered and transsexual persons. In the case of "gay" the continuum is defined as straight-gay, much as the British have the continuum of straight-bent. In the case of "queer" the continuum is more on the order of ordinary-strange. It seems to me that, for most people, "queer" has always been a snide remark or a hurled epithet, while "gay" has come to have a relatively neutral designation. It is for this reason of the negative connotation of "queer" that I decide against the practice of some of my thoughtful and admirable compatriots of speaking of the field as "queer rights." We should not forget, however, that an "in your face" attitude, as exhibited by ACTUP and other activist organizations, has its well-documented advantages. It forces people to look at their ugly and unjustified reactions, and, just as the gay activists of the sixties and seventies did, it reclaims an abusive term as an expression of pride. The word "queer" also more easily exposes the national habit of regarding minority ways as strange or odd ways, a habit that stands as an emblem of our lack of appreciation for diversity.

Nevertheless, "gay rights" it will be for these documents. What remains to be enunciated is why gay rights must include the rights of bisexual, trans-gendered and transsexual persons. I have been advised that overemphasizing such groups can lead to confusion and resistance in the minds of those whom we are trying to convince, but I cannot in good conscience ignore these other sexual minorities for the following reasons. First, we all must stand together in the fight against unjust discrimination. I can no more ignore these minorities than I can ignore the oppression of women and men. Second, inclusion of each of these groups lends another layer of clarity to the nature of the oppression of homosexuals.

Briefly, by looking also at bisexual oppression, we can understand the destructive nature of the assumption that a person is either straight or gay. The possibility that a person might be attracted to both sexes raises to visibility the usually hidden question of how couples can effectively deal with sexual attraction to someone outside a committed relationship. Because of this, acknowledgement of bisexual persons challenge yet other Judeo-Christian beliefs, such as the belief that the only moral committed relationships are monogamous ones (which is odd, because the patriarchs often had more than one wife). By looking at the nature of trans-gendered and transsexual people, we can understand that sexual orientation and gender identity are separate and independent aspects of a person's psyche, and are not even formed by the same process. We simply cannot have an appreciation of diversity if we do not address these natural variants of human sexuality with justice.