The concept of sexual identity, however flawed, is one that makes the struggle for civil rights necessary and possible, employing a mode of political usefulness especially with social grassroots movements. While identification often involves a process of identifying differences, there is a laudable quality, in at least establishing a sense of respect for our identities however different they may be.
One notable idea that Salama points to is the notion that identity is “unnecessary,” because it is true that once secured, identity does not obliterate abberation, perhaps instilling hostility towards our differences. What I cannot appreciate about this article however, is that it breaks entirely from an anti-essentialist argument calling for a social or political organization that is more true to the inessential, fluid and multifaceted character of sexuality. Rather than alluding to proposals that identification should be viewed in a freer and more deconstructed form, Salama rather crudely states that, “Surely there are larger problems to worry about.” In a narrow-minded approach, she overlooks the fact that just because a legistlation targets a smaller group of transgenders, it does not affect the larger population, when in fact, it alters an entire society. It is not a matter of legislations about “very narrow, personal issues” considering the broader ramifications that laws such as Gender Nondiscrimination Act and Vital Statistics Modernization Act establish about accepting differences. We can only hope for models in which boundaries, cultures and identities can be negotiated defined and produced but not by first establishing a sense of respect.
"she disregards mistakes the fact that just because a legistlation targets a smaller group of transgenders, it does not affect the larger population, when in fact, it alters an entire society." Exactly!
ReplyDelete