Week Five

I just want to state that today I feel 80% female and 20% squiggle. (Trans 101)

Schulman points out that the “false privatization of familial homophobia has kept us from acknowledging that it is not a personal problem but rather a cultural crisis.’ (p. 38) However, Schulman seemed to have a contradiction in the premise of her chapter titled, Cultural Crisis, Not Personal Problem. While the thrust of her argument stresses that the damaging impact of familial homophobia cannot be laid at the feet of gay people to have to dismantle, she also claims that the issue is, at root, a personal problem of heterosexuals. She states that homophobia exists throughout every “ethnic, class, racial, and religious group” and concludes that “it is really about individual strength of character and the family’s capacity for love.” (p.34) Additionally, she argues, “most people do not have a capacity for justice strong enough to overcome social expectations.” (p.38) This serves as justification for why the solution needs to be sought through channels of social expectation rather than “individual heterosexuals and their capacity for original thought.” Would it be more accurate to have the Schulman chapter title reflect a belief that homophobia is a cultural crisis for gay people and a personal problem for straight folx?  

I have chosen-family sons who shared their lives with me throughout the end of high school and through their early 20’s. Some of my "kiddos" are gay and many have families that are Hispanic, Latinx, and Christian. These men are loved by their families, but as Schulman points out, “are expected to capitulate…[a]nd be grateful for crumbs.” They deserve space to be exactly who they are and never be forced to hide their romantic involvement. And like Schulman, I am no stranger to having ungracious thoughts about people exhibiting homophobia. However, I keep being drawn back to the Levins-Morales statement from our that says, “shaming, shunning, and punishing are not tools of liberation.” 

I also think about this in terms of how it works within congregations. While working at a mid-sized church I watched a series of events unfold that led to a congregant choosing to leave the church. They had been a member for years and even served in leadership. However, they transitioned and admitted that this faith community did not manage to stay in covenant with them throughout the process. Despite the church’s reputation for being a progressive, inclusive community, this individual had to deal with microaggressions, like people consistently misusing pronouns. Some people had no qualms about physically touching the individual and/or commenting on physical changes. The minister opted to be rather passive about naming this, or calling people back into covenant. The end result is this individual left the church. The offenses were never addressed, and the entrenched systemic transphobia remains unchallenged. 

Understanding that “oppressed group’s own experience and interpretation of social life finds little expression that touches the dominant culture” (Young), I feel that these issues should have been addressed from a multilayered perspective. Since “those with the most power have the least information,” (Schulman) the church has tremendous power to amplify the marginalized voices. It could have been addressed from the pulpit, not any incident directly, but with a well crafted message on inclusion and laying the foundations for such ideas. It also seemed to call for some support in terms of a meeting with a minister or (appropriate to this faith community) an intervention with the Committee on Shared Ministry. Then loving, gentle reiteration from church leadership in Coffee Hour chat, in newsletters, and communications. Perhaps committing to having ceremonies for those who wish to celebrate transitions? This could serve as public recognition and has the added benefit of exposure to joyful stories of positive examples of loving affirmation.