Understanding the concept of social privilege by example

[Pay attention, class.]

Social privilege is a set of unearned advantages and pre-existing priority afforded to one group over another. 


Typically, this kind of privilege is invisible to those who possess it, so that such people often have trouble understanding why those who lack such privilege are asking for equality. Isn't everyone already treated the same? Hence equal rights or treatment is termed by those resisting any acknowledgement of their own privilege as "special rights" and "special treatment".

In some cases there is a lurking sense by those resisting the acknowledgement of social privilege that true equality doesn't exist, so that they must lose out and take their turn being "down" to others if others are to "rise". In other cases the idea that equality is really special treatment is taken to such an extreme that arguments for equality are seen as just a ruse to attack and subjugate those identified as having privilege.

These kinds of resentful and fearful reactions can blend together in some really unhealthy and paranoid ways. Here are some recent examples of threatened-privilege derangement syndrome.

Glenn Beck: Obama Is About To Put Conservatives In Internment Camps

Tony Perkins Says Gay Rights Advocates Want Anti-Christian Holocaust, Will 'Start Rolling Out The Boxcars'

Evangelical Leaders Warn Of 'Secular Totalitarianism' And 'Jail' For U.S. Christians

Peter LaBarbera Fears LGBT History Initiative Will Destroy America

BarbWire Pundit Warns The 'Homosexual Juggernaut' Will Rival Nazi Germany

Yup. 

What do you really know about gender-nonconforming children?

[Symbol for transgender/non-gender conforming identity]

To those questioning their value because of their social status, whether the issue is related to ideas about the right career, amount of money, level of education, skin color, religious (non-)affiliation, sexual orientation, or gender identity, there are many people out there who aren't like those who've judged and dismissed you as not good enough.

To those who base their opinion of a person's worth on how they look, how much money they have in the bank, and whether your holy book says that someone is worthy of respect just as they are, you are missing out on the chance to know some amazing people.

Knowing someone with a gender-nonconforming child and having followed the highlights of the journey from revelation, acceptance, and education to activism, I have become aware that while kids who are nerdy, clumsy, or overweight may develop image issues, acquire social phobias, and suffer the effects of bullying, the frequency and severity of these issues can be much higher for gay and especially transgender children.

An informative piece called "Dispelling Myths, Misconceptions and Lies About Gender-Nonconforming Children" was recently published on The Huffington Post which lists and refutes many of the uninformed and unfair assumptions that I have been hearing about for over a year.

Even if you don't know of someone who is openly gender nonconforming, the odds are someone you know or meet will come out as such in your lifetime. Take a couple of minutes to learn about this topic so that even if you only ever read about legislation and policies regarding trans* children and their families, you will have some idea of what they need and what they go through.

US Christians still failing the LGBQT* community

[Much important work remains unfinished.]

Polls and surveys reveal that Christianity is increasingly associated with intolerance, mean-spiritedness, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes, particularly toward the LGBQT* community in the United States. Wasn't there supposed to be something in the heart of the Christian tradition about loving others, refraining from judgment, and caring for those who are excluded and heavily burdened?

To cut to the chase, yes there are Christian fundamentalists on the religious right who have contributed to such negative views of Christianity in North America, particularly in the United States. They have been supported many clerical leaders and lay people in the Roman Catholic Church as well as some mainline Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist Church, and in both of these examples there are members who are actively opposed to discriminatory policies and teachings. Yet even in many of the more progressive leaning Christians denominations the attitudes expressed toward the LGBQT* community are often luke-warm at best, and those Christians who feel that they are being misrepresented by their more conservative peers are responsible for their own efforts in presenting and living out their values.

Being "not as bad" as other Christian groups on such issues isn't good enough. Having an openly gay Bishop doesn't absolve a denomination of its other shortcomings in being welcoming to and actively affirming the dignity and worth of LGBQT* people any more than having an African American President signals that there is no more structural or personal racism in the nation. Slogans, committees, and press releases supporting equal rights and anti-bullying campaigns can't take the place of active education and proactive local measures to help congregations understand, display, and act upon those generically promoted values of acceptance.

Now for the excuses:

In the past few years many major denominations have moved at the national level have moved toward accepting the blessing of same-sex commitment ceremonies and civil unions.

Some have, some haven't. And for those that have, there is a clear distinction between blessing such unions and the sacrament of marriage. The blessing also tends to be optional, at the discretion of a particular congregation or bishop.

The procedures in place for making major changes to church law and policy are laborious and ponderous, and are designed that way to promote deliberation and allow for thoughtful changes gradually over time.

That is somewhat true, but here is a test case. Let's say one of the bigger mainline denominations found, to their embarrassment, something in an official bit of church rule or law that barred African Americans from being ministers, or which didn't allow interracial marriage. The scenario isn't meant to be likely, just an example. Slow and ponderous as the processes behind official policy changes may be, how long would it take to correct this oversight and strike it down?

There would be an immediate press release apologizing for the oversight, and at the very least a unanimous vote at the next national meeting of the denomination to rewrite the offending section. That is, assuming there wasn't some loophole found for calling an emergency meeting of senior officials to address such a problem. The denomination in question would be tripping over itself in a rush to make things right.

Anyone see that happening at the moment on the issue of LGBQT* equality?

Many members of the denomination, especially some of the older members, grew up in a different time and culture and it takes time for changes to filter into and become familiar within the congregations. Things are moving as fast as human nature and the denomination's demographics will allow.

Maybe, but a 2013 survey indicates that 62% of mainline Protestants who identified as "white" were in favor of gay people being allowed to marry, while 58% of white Roman Catholics agreed. Given that this and other polls have shown a major age divide on this issue, it isn't hard to see how these numbers play out within a particular denomination or congregation. This supports the idea that changes in attitude in the pews has an age-related factor and that this in turn can effect policy at the national level. The current strategy followed by the somewhat more progressive denominations allows some face-saving on the matter of being gay and transgender friendly while not upsetting and potentially losing more of the older or more socially conservative members who already feel things are changing too fast or that enough has already been done.

A harsh assessment?

The claim that US Christians are still failing the LGBQT* community may seem like a harsh assessment, but stand back for a moment and look at the situation.  The bullying of gay and transgender teens and related teen suicide is still prevalent. Those who oppose equality and basic dignity for the LGBQT* are railing louder than ever because of challenges to their privilege, claiming persecution because they can't always get away with lying about and slandering gay and transgender people anymore. They are increasingly called out for it now, and this is a source of panic and outrage and, sadly, even acts of violence. Yet somehow discrimination against LGBQT* individuals hasn't magically vanished, and despite the protests of the religious right, such individuals are not untouchable nor are they running society.

In midst of this chaos and the resulting din of social discord and political hyperbole, what is the audible message of those Christian denominations, congregations, and individuals who claim to support the LGBQT* community? Where are their voices? What is the bold declaration that they offer in such challenging circumstances, and how are the taking a visible and powerful stand for those who are heavily burdened?

Yes, there are reasonable sounding explanations for why bold change and decisive leadership seem so slow in coming. Yes, there are practical limitations to what the national leadership of some denominations can do to effect change in the congregations, or what congregations can do to effect change in the national leadership of their denomination. Yes, there are arguments for positive signs on the horizon and so on for many denominations.

But the fact is, whoever or whatever is responsible, the actual current effectiveness of Christianity in the face of attitudes and politics affecting gay and transgender people weighs heavily on the anti-LGBQT* side of the scale, with what can generally be considered slow and tepid efforts to reverse this dynamic.

So even if you can claim that you, your congregation, or your denomination is doing all it can at the moment for gay and transgender equality (can you make that claim?), the bottom line is that Christianity in the United States is overall still failing the anti-LGBQT* community. This isn't a put down or a dismissal of the efforts of those trying to change this fact, rather it is a reminder of the truth of the situation. There is no time for complacency. Too much work remains to be done.

Tomorrow is the Transgender Day of Remembrance

[Kristen Beck, former navy seal, US military veteran, and Bronze Star recipient. Does she not deserve the gratitude and respect of her fellow citizens and the right to live as the person she is rather than who some insist she be? Photo by Kristen Beck.]

Trans* people are those whose sense of gender identity and related forms of gender expression don't match the rigid man/woman binary found in places like the United States.

They are not confused, they are not perverts, and they are not creeps.

But they are still treated with hatred, fear, derision, mockery, and so on to the point that many are beaten, killed, or commit suicide. Hence the Day of Remembrance.

I am not going to launch into a lecture here about the social construction of--

Oh heck, I have something I wrote not long ago about gender in a comment for Facebook, so I'll share that:

One of the main stumbling blocks in our understanding of gender is the reification of culturally conditioned social labels. We are already know that sex (biology shaped by gonadal steroids) exists along a spectrum, and the current consensus of social science identifies gender as a social construct and resulting social performance based on cultural expectations of sex.

What we don't know is how hormones, the brain, consciousness (including agency), and the social landscape interact in human development to produce the categories we associate with gender -- gender identity, gender performance (according to established gender roles), etc, let alone categories of related subjects like sexual orientation.

We can't even be sure that our gender categories are adequate and accurate because of the heavy weight of conventional wisdom and the heat of debate over the issue (kind of reminds me of the depths one can plunge for the history, philosophy, and science of terms like "gene" and "species").

While we wait for (or rush out to participate in) research to clarify the issue, we can reasonably assume that however many axes around which (what we generally think of as) gender pivots, there will be spectra of variation as with sex. We also know that gender dysphoria and gender discrimination can cause depression and self harm, with suicide resulting from cruel forms of social control (bullying, discrimination, feeling isolated, feeling like you are a mistake or that there is no place for you in the social landscape, etc) as a leading cause of death among trans* individuals.

In other words, while the subject is indeed fascinating and worthy of the kind of collaborative interdisciplinary work on the human condition at which anthropologists excel, we don't need to wait for the biocultural verdict on the taxonomy of gender and its influences/causes to advocate and adopt compassionate and humane attitudes and policies for trans* and potentially trans* individuals.

If a pre-teen does indeed "grow out of it", what is the harm of having a happy childhood identifying with what is culturally defined as the "wrong" toys and clothes? If a teen is suffering because of their bodily changes as seen through the lens of gender dysphoria, is it unthinkable to use hormone blockers to slow puberty until a clear decision can be reached on whether to pursue surgical options?

My observations of the trans* debate is that it is primarily rooted in the cultural norms and categories of a society that conflates sex and gender and traditionally limits both to a rigid binary. I think informed social policy and scientific debate on gender is a great and necessary thing, and we can all use a good shake-up of our assumptions about the subject, but I for one always need to remind myself that at the center of such anthropological debates are real, living, thinking, feeling people. Kindness is always the right answer for that subject.

I would add that, since this was aimed at students and scholars of anthropology, I didn't feel the need to explain or give examples of how gender is socially constructed, and how much of what we assume to be sex-based differences are really gender-based. Examples from history and cross-cultural comparisons demonstrate this repeatedly.

But humans assume that the worldview they grew up with is a mostly complete and highly accurate picture of reality and don't like things that don't fit inside the boxes into which they've learned to place things. That which exists outside or between these categories make people upset and may be viewed with suspicion, fear, disgust, or contempt.

Hence a non-macho, or small, or homosexual male is "queer"*. And if your gender (how you act, live, dress, etc) doesn't match the expectations of your sex (gonads, sex hormones, genitalia, etc) you are often viewed and treated with similar scorn. If you try to alter aspects of your sex to fit your gender identity, the disrespect and harassment can intensify. Hence the aforementioned violence.

If you are moved to compassion and charity, and agree that kindness is the right response in the face of such discrimination, be active in supporting equality through bills such as ENDA.

Be well.



*Check  out the last paragraph in this article for a more descriptive take as well as my response to such attitudes.