In previous articles, I examined trans activism and how umbrella thinking – conflating transsexual and gender diverse people as one puzzling whole – sets the stage for erasure and conflict that impedes trans as a social movement or movements.   I also talked about an ongoing "don’t call me transgender" argument that has been happening in trans groups and how simply divorcing various trans groups from each other only perpetuates the colonial practices it claims to be trying to address.  It’s easy to pull something apart - the more challenging thing is to put it back together in a way that makes sense.

I’ve used the phrase "Transsexual and Gender Diverse" in this discussion. "Gender diverse" is likely a temporary designation, since as someone relatively binary-privileged, I probably shouldn’t be the person defining someone else. Any umbrella term is likely to be flawed, although at least it acknowledges diversity. Maybe gender diverse people - whether genderqueer, crossdressing, agender or otherwise - will prefer to retain "transgender." Time will tell.

When I use that phrase for issues that both share, I’m denoting a visible difference in narrative and needs between:

We know that both kinds of paths exist and that the people who follow them need to do so, in order to be true to themselves.

I do sometimes use "trans" to keep discussions from being clunky, but using two designations where possible to ensure greater visibility and distinction. "Trans" alone is still vulnerable to umbrella thinking.

It’s important to note that I’m talking about dividing characteristics, and not people. People can be both. Divorce and repudiation of anyone who doesn’t fit certain preconceptions is not decolonialism, but rather the creation of new borders and hierarchies.

The whole concept of human rights, for example, is that everyone needs to be treated according to their individual merits and actions, and not be prejudged based on a real or perceived membership in any particular class. If we truly believe in the concept of human rights, then we believe in human rights for all. If we seek to make exceptions, then we aren’t seeking human rights, we’re seeking special rights, which is oppression. We don’t put into place protections for disability and then seek to exempt mental disabilities simply because what we believe about this-or-that condition intimidates us.

If alliance is to be something significantly different from umbrella activism, then it’s not likely to follow exactly the same rules. We can’t just change the name and proceed exactly as we did before. Being that I’m not the "Supreme Dictator," I can’t dictate what those rules should be. I can suggest what I think would make sense - but again, I speak only for myself.

The question now becomes "Why ally?" and that has been an ongoing debate in trans and LGB(T) circles. Because we’re thinking in terms of umbrellas, we look for "sames" that unite us - the nature of homophobia and transphobia, the general public’s perception of us, gender expression and societal expectations, areas of overlap - and then we face challenges to that by people who focus on the differences. When we’re arguing this, we’re still thinking in terms of forming colonies and mapping their borders.

Why ally? Well, for social justice purists, the answer is usually simply "because there’s a need," or "because it’s the right thing to do." But becoming involved with everything that has a need is obviously going to drive people to burn themselves out. So ultimately, we need to be somewhat selective and limit this to "because there’s a need and because I can."

For those coming from positions of lesser power - or in this case, when both are in positions of equally reduced power - the answer to that question is also often in part, "so we can be heard." Without a presence in a dialogue, one is unable to shape it. So we seek to be involved with movements that are active in issues that directly and sometimes indirectly affect us, or have the potential to define us in the public arena.

The latter is important, because from a pragmatic point of view, transsexual and gender diverse communities have already been so closely linked that each will probably shape the other for years to come whether they intend to or not - unless both can be on the same page about clearly presenting multiple communities, with multiple sets of issues and needs.

But most often, the answer to that question comes down to ones willingness and/or ability to empathize. For many of us, those umbrella "sames" we mentioned give us a reason to care, and help us understand another’s issues to a greater or lesser degree. Not everyone agrees with those "sames," so trying to force those points of empathy that appeal to you on someone else is a cornering argument, and inevitably will get a cornered response. We care - or we don’t - on our own terms. But if we don’t, we can’t play the victim when others view us in the same manner.

Likewise, if we have a common "same," it doesn’t give us a right to speak on behalf of everyone with that commonality (and that’s something that thinking in terms of an umbrella sometimes seduces us into doing), but it does give us ample reason to speak our own perspective, listen (and parse), and find a middle ground if it’s needed.

There is sometimes also a responsibility. For us to protest how a group or society at large disenfranchises or had previously disenfranchised us, we take on a responsibility to not perpetuate that same marginalization on others. This means being involved enough to understand the perspective of people we might be affecting through our movement, or at least honestly seeking ways to minimize any harms we might cause them. Alliance is a process of oppressed classes abandoning many of the internal struggles that cause them to further oppress each other, and look for a path by which they all can progress.

And if we do ally, then there is something that becomes admittedly more difficult than they were when we were expecting people to simply get under our umbrella: building mutual solidarity. This is more difficult because we can no longer simply assume that our vision is right for everybody. And this is more rewarding because it provides a check and balance to ensure that we are seeking out the voices of others, instead of just our own. We cannot presume to change a "father knows best" social structure by adopting our own "father knows best" perspective.

Next Month: How.