← Return to search results
Back to Prindle Institute

LGBT rights

Posted on

“Born This Way”: Strategies for Gay and Fat Acceptance

Birds-eye view of a crowd of people. Some people are in focus and others are blurred.

In light of the recent discussion around Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill, you might have come across the argument that lesbian, bi/pansexual, and gay people did not choose their sexual orientation and cannot alter it and that’s what makes homophobia wrong. Call this the “born this way” argument. Interestingly, a similar response is often given to the question: What makes anti-fat bias wrong? The argument states that people cannot usually exert control over the size of their body, and diets don’t usually work. So, we shouldn’t blame them for or expect them to change something they can’t control.

Are these good answers? While both “born this way” style arguments have some truth to them, I don’t think that either gives us the best strategy for responding to these kinds of questions. Politically, they can only get us so far.

First, there is still some control that individuals can exercise in both cases. Gay people could choose to be celibate or live in a heterosexual marriage, though, of course, those actions are likely to be highly damaging to their happiness. Fat people could choose to continually stay on some diet and access medical interventions, even though they will likely gain the weight back and suffer in the meantime.

This limited control gives the homophobe/anti-fat person a foot in the door. They might argue that gay people should be celibate or force themselves to live in heterosexual relationships and that we can blame them if they fail to do so. Or that fat people should consistently diet and try to change their bodies through any means necessary. If they fail to do so, the anti-fat person can claim that they are blameworthy for not caring about their health.

It should be obvious why these are undesirable outcomes: neither rationale allows the gay person or the fat person to accept and love these core aspects of themselves. Each still effectively marginalizes gay people and fat people. These strategies simply shift the target of blame from the desires/physical tendencies themselves to the person’s response to those desires/physical tendencies. They require that you reject who you love/your own body.

Second, assume that it would be possible to argue that people can’t control their sexuality or weight at all, even to abstain from relationships or go on diets. The “born this way” style of argument blocks blame, but it doesn’t block the general attitudes that it is worse to be gay/fat and that gay/fat people cannot live full and meaningful lives.

Even if being gay or being fat are or have been associated with higher health risks (see, for instance, the recent spate of articles on COVID and obesity), that fact alone is insufficient to see these social identities as somehow inferior. For instance, failing to use sunscreen can contribute to poor health and is under personal control, and yet no one considers that behavior grounds for discrimination. Additionally, health risks such as AIDS or diabetes are not fully explainable by individual behaviors — they are also informed by public health responses, or a lack thereof, as well as by other material and social consequences of discrimination. Creating stigma does not help public health outcomes and it actively harms members of marginalized groups.

These negative associations with fat and gay people fail to take into account the kind of joy that fat and gay people experience when they accept themselves and can live full lives. See, for instance, the deep love that queer people have for each other and the loving families that they create, or the kind of joy felt in appreciating one’s fat body and enjoying living in it. Representation of fat and gay people being happy and living good lives is more likely to lead to health and happiness than campaigns to increase stigma.

Third, the “born this way” style argument, while it can be used to block some of the worst oppressive legislation and attitudes, is not the most helpful for a campaign of liberation. But what would an alternative look like? Probably an argument that shows that homophobic/anti-fat attitudes are wrong, because being gay/fat is a legitimate way to be in the world, and gay/fat people deserve equal respect and rights. In such a world in which gay/fat rights are enshrined by law and respected, gay/fat people can flourish.

With this answer, we haven’t simply blocked the ability to blame gay/fat people, we’ve blocked the judgment that there’s something morally bad or blameworthy about being gay/fat in the first instance. We’ve also avoided thorny issues surrounding what control any given individual has over their situation, and we’ve re-centered the need for positive changes to make life better for gay/fat people, to make them equal citizens, and to encourage their friends and family members to love and accept them. Of course, this project will require that we deal with the specific kinds of oppression that differently legible fat people and different sub-categories of LGBTQ+ people face, as well as how these identities can intersect with each other and with other marginalized identities.

This doesn’t mean that we should totally jettison “born this way” style arguments, but it does mean that we need to re-emphasize building and living into the kind of world we want to see. “Born this way” style arguments might be a part of that strategy, but they can’t be the core of it.

Posted on

Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” Bill and Parental Rights

photograph of school girl sent out of class

On Tuesday, March 8th, the Florida Senate passed H.B. 1557, following its approval by the Florida House. It’s now just a signature from Governor Ron DeSantis away from becoming law. Opponents have labeled it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill due to a proposed, but withdrawn, amendment that would potentially require teachers to “out” LBGTQ+ students to their parents. Defenders of the bill argue that this is misrepresentation; Gov. DeSantis has framed the bill as defending the rights of parents to not have young children indoctrinated, and some defenders, including Gov. DeSantis’ spokesperson Christina Pushaw, have said the bill is about preventing “grooming” of children, insinuating that critics are pedophiles or enablers.

To get a better understanding of this measure, we should ignore the noise and go directly to its heart. What does the law actually say? Troublingly, not very much. The law is seven pages, two and a half of which are preamble. The law requires schools to develop policies on notifying parents of changes in their child’s “mental, emotional or physical health or well-being.” In addition, the bill forbids school officials from encouraging students to withhold information about these matters from their parents.

However, the lightning rod for controversy is this sentence:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Let’s break it down. There are two clauses separated by an “or.” So, each of these clauses is introducing a unique requirement. The first clause outright forbids “classroom instruction” for K-3 grade students on “sexual orientation or gender identity.” The second clause requires that all discussions from 4th grade onward are “age-appropriate.” Clearly, the bill does more than prohibit discussing sexuality with kindergarteners.

The trouble is that none of these terms are defined. There is no explanation of what “instruction” consists of and how it differs from, say, a discussion. Further, lines 21-23 of the bill’s preamble state that it is intended to prohibit discussion, creating internal incoherence about the goals. It contains no description or suggestion of what age-appropriate instruction would look like. There’s no statement about the kind of “change” in students’ “mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being” that might require teachers to inform parents.

Critics argue that the bill is designed to chill all discussion of gender identity and sexuality in schools through this vagueness. The bill does not set up criminal or misdemeanor punishments for violators. Instead, like the recent Texas abortion law, it gives parents the right to file suit against any school district or official that they believe violates the bill’s demands. Lawsuits are expensive and time consuming. Thus, many school officials would, justifiably, avoid engaging in behavior that could trigger a lawsuit.

So, critics offer scenarios like the following: Imagine a 1st grade classroom. One student, the child of two gay men, makes a comment about her dads. A confused student asks the teacher why her classmate has two dads when she only has one. Even though this isn’t instruction, the teacher may want to immediately squelch this conversation – a student could go home, say that she learned some families have two dads but no mom, and an upset parent may file suit. For similar reasons, any school officials who are members of the LGBTQ+ community may believe that they must hide this part of their identity from students.

This criticism is important – it gives us serious reason to question the bill. Especially when considering the larger cultural context. However, even if this bill made no references to sexuality and gender identity, it would still contain something very problematic. This was revealed through an exchange on the floor of the Florida Senate. Senator Lori Berman asked if a school would be required to inform parents that their child requested vegetarian lunches. Senator Dennis Baxley, the bill’s sponsor, gave a non-answer in response – he merely repeated that parents should not be kept in the dark. This is, to me, quite telling of the bill’s intent.

Parental rights regarding education have become a hot topic in recent months. However, most of these discussions have dealt with rights that parents have against institutions, namely, the right to know about, and reject, contents of the curriculum. Very little has been said about what rights parents have against their children, in comparison. H.B. 1557 gives a strong picture of parental rights – parents have a broad right to be told even what their children do not want to tell them. And the way the bill is framed seems to give parents the right to know whenever their child is engaged in questioning values.

Consider this case. A student in a 10th grade U.S. history class learns about the three-fifths compromise. She raises her hand and expresses some distress. She is deeply upset to learn that people were used as pawns for political purposes – representatives from Northern states literally did not want slaves counted among people, while Southern representatives wanted slaves counted as persons for the purposes of political power, but not in any way that would benefit the slaves. The student has a hard time reconciling this with the values of freedom and equality that purportedly motivated the Founding Fathers and feels that her image of the nation is shaken.

H.B. 1157 seems to require that the teacher report this distress to the student’s parents. Distress could be a change in her “psychological well-being” especially when this concept is left undefined. But I think this overstates the rights that parents have over their children. Even children, especially adolescents, should have some rights to privacy.

Although not yet full adults, in a biological or psychological sense, adolescents are in the process of discovering who they are and express agency while they do so. Part of this process involves questioning, in particular the questioning of values. This is often a painful and upsetting process. Like the experience of physical growing pains, the process of figuring out who you are by sloughing away what you are not can produce serious discomfort. If a young adult does not invite their parent(s) into this process, there is a reason for this – they do not view their parent(s) as able to constructively contribute to the process of self-discovery. This right to control who they invite into their process of self-building should be respected.

The point of H.B. 1557 seems to go well-beyond its restrictions on instruction of sexuality and gender issues. The proposal stands to further stifle the space that adolescents have available to them to question the world and their place in it. It threatens to turn schools into a surveillance apparatus; school officials are now tasked with closely monitoring students and reporting any behaviors relevant to “critical decisions” to their parents. If defenders of the bill are correct and it is indeed just a way of respecting parental rights, then it does so at the expense of children’s rights.

Ultimately, as Rachel Robinson-Greene argued in an earlier post, this may reveal a disagreement about the purpose of education. For those that view education as the transmission of information with a goal of job training, school is obviously not the place for questioning. But if we view education as training adolescents to be citizens in a pluralistic democracy, to think critically, to understand themselves and justify themselves to others, or even as a form of liberation, then schools should allow young people the space to critically reflect on the world, even if this clashes with the values of their parents.

Defenders of parental rights often view themselves as protecting their children from indoctrination. But thinking that your child was indoctrinated because they do not share your values ignores a basic tenant of democratic society – that reasonable people may value different things and come to different conclusions when presented with the same information.

Posted on

Gorsuch, Textualism, and The Magic Lamp

Detail of the SCOTUS building that reads "equal justice under law"

If you’re wondering how a conservative justice could have sided with the liberal side of the Supreme Court and rule that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects homosexuals and transgender persons from workplace discrimination, the best analogy to think of is when a genie from a magic lamp interprets your words so literally that you get something completely opposite of what you want. 

Neil Gorsuch, like his predecessor Antonin Scalia, is an avowed textualist–someone who thinks that we ought to interpret federal laws based on what they literally seem to say and what those literal statements logically entail. They disavow the idea that we should look to what authors of the law intended (or would have done had they foreseen the consequences of the law they’ve written). They are staunchly opposed to the tendency toward judicial activism or legislating from the bench. Instead, they are adamant that the courts should not be engines of social change, and believe that this temperance is necessary to preserve our system of checks and balances. Given the fact that judges aren’t directly accountable to the people, they believe that if the law needs to change, the legislature should be the body to enact that change. The duty of a judge, then, is simply to ensure that the laws are faithfully discharged in a manner consistent to the way they were enacted.

In this case, the law prohibits discrimination (even in part) based on sex. And in 1964, “sex” was defined in terms of one’s biological makeup at birth. So how does a textualist look at a law from 1964, which defined “sex” in terms of biology, and find a law that protects people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity? 

I asked myself the exact same question, so I looked at Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, GA, and the answer lies in this sentence: “Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employee to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.”

Think about it. You can’t label someone as homosexual without reference to their biological sex. A homosexual man is a “biological man” who is oriented toward men. A transgender woman was assigned male at birth but identifies as a woman. Because those identities essentially contain biological sex, if you disciminate against someone based on these identities, then you discriminate against them in part on the basis of their sex (as defined in 1964). 

Now, you might be thinking, “But surely when they wrote the law in 1964, if they could have seen that the consequences of that law (as written) would protect homosexuals and transgender persons, they would have written it differently.” You’re probably right. But you’re also making an argument that is decidedly not textualist.

Justices Alito and Kavanaugh disagreed with Gorsuch’s textualist logic. Alito argued that “Textualists do not read statutes as if they were messages picked up by a powerful radio telescope from a distant and utterly unknown civilization.” Kavanaugh criticized the majority for taking a “literalist” approach rather than a textualist one, suggesting that the majority chose instead to “simply split statutory phrases into their component words, look up each in a dictionary, and then mechanically put them together again.” To the dissent, the majority opinion did indeed usurp legislative power. 

In personal terms, Gorsuch’s majority opinion might not have come as a surprise: he worked as a clerk for former Justice Kennedy, who played a pivotal role in Obergefell v. Hodges, and Gorsuch’s friends have expressed that he’s supported gay friends and attended churches that welcome gay members. 

So perhaps this is why the genie analogy is a propos. Gorsuch is a textualist. He is that genie in the lamp who reads things (and their logical consequences) quite literally, and for some, these readings result in wishes that really do come true. 

Posted on

Social Media, Social Change

When a bandwagon social media trend arises, the critics are certain to follow. Last week, while the Supreme Court heard two cases on gay marriage, a separate discussion was taking place on the Internet. An estimated 2.7 million users changed their Facebook profile picture to the Human Rights Campaign’s symbol for marriage equality. Chances are you’ve seen this image or some clever variation of it—maybe you displayed the image as your profile picture too. Using this image was an act of support for the LGBT community, a perfectly harmless statement advocating for their right to marriage equality—or so many people thought. As this trend quickly took over the sphere of social media, it was the subject of both praise and controversy.

Many people were displeased that the HRC promoted this image when they have come under fire for injustices related to the LGBT community. In 2007, they excluded transgendered people when backing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. In recent years, the HRC has also been involved in supporting major corporations, which seems rather contrary to their goals as an organization striving for equality. Derrick Clifton’s article for the Huffington Post goes into greater detail about the criticism surrounding the HRC and its involvement with the marriage equality debate. It’s my guess that most people who shared the image had no idea of the controversies surrounding the HRC. I know I wasn’t familiar with them. How does this affect the act of posting their image on Facebook and other social media outlets?

Though I didn’t change my own profile picture, I saw dozens of my friends change theirs, and I generally saw it as a good act. The intention behind it was in support and solidarity of an important cause. Changing your profile picture not only implies this support, but also that you want other people to know what side you’re on. And it’s a great way to discover just how much people care about this issue—with all the buzz about this little red and white equal sign, clearly it’s a matter of great significance among the population. With benevolent intention backing this mass trend, I don’t think the HRC’s mistakes, though disappointing, detract from the message inherent in spreading this image. The image itself is secondary to the belief that all couples have the right to get married, and it is that belief that is really at the root of posting the photo.

Still, there are a couple of things to consider when you observe or partake in any given trend like this. One, be as informed as you can be. Know what it is you’re standing for, do your own research, and reflect on your own beliefs about the issue at hand (i.e. don’t just conform to the fad because you want some Facebook “likes”). Two, don’t let your action stop there. In all honesty, the Supreme Court doesn’t care so much about your new profile picture. Sure, it’s a nice statement and collectively shows that millions of people care, but make sure you’re living out your beliefs aside from the realm of social media. Don’t let it become irrelevant once it’s no longer trendy and the image disappears from your news feed, keep the momentum going. Seek out ways to get involved on campus. For example, the student-run organization United DePauw is dedicated to promoting awareness of LGBT issues, and it’s open to all students regardless of sexuality. Attending some of their meetings and events would be a great way to further the conversation beyond your computer screen.

In regards to gay marriage, one of the most fervent debates of modern times, I think advocacy for the issue will continue to grow stronger. As it does, keep yourself up to date on the ongoing discussion. If you change your profile picture, do so thoughtfully and purposefully because it represents what you believe in—in doing this, it shouldn’t matter what the critics think.