I’ve written previously about the need for clarity between the terms "transsexual" and "transgender," but also why it makes sense to seek rights and inclusion as allies.  This is similar to how trans* differs from lesbian / gay, but shared discrimination and characteristics make it sensible to empathize and ally.  I want to conclude that thought with ideas on how to ally while respecting those differences.

The mistake that some often make is in thinking that in order for their narrative to be heard, another’s must be silenced.  We do not each have to trump "The Other", in order to be heard.  By separating characteristics in naming, we make clear that we’re defining multiple identities, and that is enough.

This will mean reassessing our own views to see that others’ experiences can be different from our own, and equally valid. This means being conscious of language that is often used to judge or invalidate others. This means listening to how others describe themselves.  We can communicate without generalizing about a person based on their membership in a perceived group.  Keep personal issues separate from the dialogue on characteristics.  We cannot define for someone else who they are, what they need and what their life experiences mean.

Invalidation is not simply limited to words.  The opinions that "you can never become completely male or female" or conversely that "anything short of this form of transition means a person isn’t real" are equally invalidating of different trans* people.  That’s why it makes sense to clearly delineate the difference in the first place.  Invalidation is triggering, and why the arguments can get so heated.  It doesn’t always excuse the ferocity of a response, but it is a large part of why it happens.

Which leads to a related principle: according respect.  Every functioning relationship must have that, and alliance is no different.  The idea that "respect must be earned" harkens to the idea that someone needs to meet your prerequisites.  Instead, each individual needs to start out being respected, unless their individual deeds warrant a change to that.  And if / when someone does something that merits disrespect, it should not then be extended to everyone else who shares a characteristic with that person.

Respect needs to be a part of the equation, but it has to be a kind of respect that doesn’t imply a need for conformity and conversion.

By defining ourselves narrowly, we are turning away more than we realize.  Our "communities" are often fissured by ability or disability, family circumstances, age, economic status and employment.  The differences are profound, and the consequences of not seeing and not listening to them are that our communities are defined by narrower visions than we realize.  But recognizing these fissures and reaching out with many of these same principles help to bridge divides with allies we never knew we had -- and understand the universal struggle against oppression more clearly.

"Transgender" as an umbrella implies that we are one issue, with one solution.  We’ve seen now that that isn’t the case.  Clarity on what gender identity and gender expression are and why two terms are needed makes it easier to clarify that there were two sets of needs, and why.

Having an umbrella made it easier for medical professionals, legislators, media, employers and the public at large to engage with transsexual and other trans people, and find reasons to care about the issues faced by them.  Some fear that by changing how we frame things, we’ll be destroying everything we might have accomplished and need to start over.  This is not the case.  But we need to reassess and refine our message to make it clearer and more comprehensive.  "Gay" doesn’t adequately cover lesbians and bisexuals — we can’t expect any one word to adequately do the same for all trans people.

This does affect how we approach questions affecting overlapping communities.  This comes up when we say things like "intersex is a trans issue."  That implies ownership, and is obviously wrong.  There are certainly areas of overlap and reasons to empathize and ally.  In the case of intersex, there may even be forthcoming science to bolster that.  But alliance is the better solution, done by empowering intersex people to speak to what they’ve experienced, and also educating ourselves by listening so that in those moments that intersex perspectives are not available, then (and only then) we can fill the void (with caveats that make clear that we’re not the final authority).  It also means being conscious of those areas where transsexual and / or gender diverse activism can actually harm intersex people.

As within, so without.  Lesbian and gay advocacy functions as alliance, and periodically, it happens that gay men speak for lesbians and get called on it, and vice versa. But because bisexual, transsexual and gender diverse groups don’t have the same visible numbers and the same number of overlaps, they’ve often been likewise victim to umbrella thinking, and it has caused deep rifts and bitterness.  Which is a road I hope transsexual and gender diverse activists can commit themselves to avoiding.  Are trans issues LGB issues or aren’t they?  Neither answer is correct: we should be thinking in terms of alliance, rather than ownership.

Which leads to the next logical step: if disempowerment is the problem, then empower.  This means providing opportunities for diverse voices to speak, acknowledging clear distinctions and recognizing that there isn’t a single solution to trans struggles.  There are in fact more than simply two voices ("transsexual" and "gender diverse") that need to be represented, too — for example, I as a transsexual woman cannot claim to speak for transsexual men.  As capable people become active and available, invite them into the levels of advocacy that shape the movement.  This is both true without and within our own movements.

Any organization aiming to undertake transsexual and gender diverse advocacy does need to invite available, capable and willing trans people to be at the forefront of that, and understand that they need to have a place in shaping the script.

We can’t simply attempt to make the gains that are within our reach now and let the conflicts that later arise sort themselves out.  We need to consciously drill down to find where our conflicts are, and shape what we’re asking accordingly, to ensure that the gains we attain now will not harm others later.  Some of those conflicts we’ll need to examine include:

Can we advocate for transsexuals’ integration into a binary world and for non-binary spaces at the same time?  I’d think it should be easier and make more sense to the public from an allied "transsexual and gender non-conforming" position and language than otherwise.  This is where an alliance makes far greater sense than an umbrella.

In envisioning an alliance, I’m not picturing simply changing terminology, although the clarity of giving name to multiple communities is a part of that improvement.  But there also needs to be a wholesale rethinking of how we take ownership — often without realizing it — and voice one narrative without making it clear that one narrative does not represent the whole.  Anything less than a commitment to clarity is half-hearted at best.

Words are absolutely important.  When "transgender" was used as an umbrella term, it was meant to be a union of purpose, not a union of narratives or an intent to erase.  The trouble is, the latter still happened regardless of what we intended, by the faulty language we’d adopted.  That language has to evolve in a meaningful way.

At the same time though,"The Community™" needs to be seen as communities, neighbourhoods of people who don’t always need exactly the same things that we do, and to whom we should do no harm — or better, when there is the opportunity, with whom we should work together.  And if we do choose to build those alliances, then it will sometimes mean standing up for things that don’t directly affect us sometimes.  Because that’s what alliance is.

An alliance is a compromise, but a compromise on an equal footing, entered into with conscience.

Thank you to everyone who read through these long and sometimes pontificating columns.  In the end, this series needs to be a conversation starter, and not an ender.

I’d like to challenge readers now:

There is a reason that the last question was placed last.  In alliances, that question can’t be your first and only concern.

This is why they can be difficult.  Better isn’t always easier.  But I believe it’s where we need to go, in order to avert growing stalemate and division.