Zap!

[dreamer_easy]

Some memes have been floating around asking people to support "gay rights" in their LJs. I think that's a bit vague, so I'd like to suggest a thought experiment, especially for anyone who's not too sure about this whole "gay rights" thing anyway.

I think gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender folks should have the same rights as I do. So the thought experiment's easy: just imagine I've been hit with a mad scientist's ray and I've suddenly been turned into a man. I should still have the same rights as I did five minutes before the ray hit me: not to get fired because I fancy men; to be married to Jon; to adopt kids; to have IVF; and so on.

Now since I'm in Australia, zapped-man-me would already have a lot of those rights, and he would also have them in the UK. In the US, though, male-me would not be able to take family leave to look after Jon, or get Social Security benefits if he died. In most states, either of us could legally be fired. If his health plan happened to covered male-me, we'd be taxed on it. And so on and so forth. Then again, if I did get zapped into a man, Jon couldn't bring me to the US anyway.

Now let's zap me back into a woman. Suddenly I have all my rights back, and the only thing that's different is what sex I am. Suddenly - to me anyway, I don't know if you agree - it's obvious that discrimination against queers is discrimination on the basis of gender, no different to being allowed to fire a woman for getting married, or pregnant.

Your comments on this thought experiment welcome!

Comments

[angriest.livejournal.com]

I've seen a fairly solid campaign in the last few days for people to add "equality for all" to their interests list, which seemed a good thing.

[purrdence.livejournal.com]

last count 272 people have added "equality for all" to their interests list.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

...Which just begs the question "what do you mean by equality?" It also allows people to just say "yeah, I agree with that" and pass on by, without actually bothering to think about how the slogan applies to *any* specific problem of inequality.

I really don't see how dotting these vague slogans about does anybody any good. They're just noise and distraction.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Yes and no. It's actually a good example of the distinction between "discrimination" (which actually is not always a bad thing - I'd be worried about any employer who didn't discrimate between applicants on the grounds of their ability to do the job!), and "bias" (which is usually the actual problem that needs addressing).

It's discrimination on the basis of a *combination* of your own gender, and (in this example) Jon's. The conservative position would be "anybody, *of either gender*, is free to marry anybody of the opposite gender". Thus, in their thinking, the situation is *unbiased*, i.e. fair, which is then jargonised as "non-discriminatory".

Of course, this oversimplifies the concept of gender as many of us now understand it, giving no allowance for herms, the transgendered, etc.

To clarifiy my position: I'm not saying the state *should* discriminate between same-sex and mixed-sex couples in regards to taxation, employment laws, etc.; I'm just saying it is consistent with the principle of not being gender-biased, so long as one assumes ther are only two "opposite" genders. That needs to be understood by anyone trying to argue a conservative out of their viewpoint.

[stephanielake.livejournal.com]

Why do so many Americans seem to be so against lesbians and gays?