A Response to "Identification Unnecessary in Political Realm"

Engie Salama’s article is a prime example of ignorant writing riddled with illogical statements.

As Amy Nham, Esther Won, and Tara Huusko have pointed out, Salama has argued that “many people might not be comfortable accepting others for their personal decisions… [furthermore] changing one’s gender is a personal decision in most cases, and people who choose to identify themselves in a different way need to be aware of the effects of such decisions.” Salama seems to be implying the fact transgenders receive unfair treatment (an example would be how “23 percent of transgender people earn wages below the poverty level) is justified as an effect of a “personal decision”. First of all, it is not a personal decision. Sexuality, as demonstrated by Queer Theory and Kinsfey scale, is fluid and undefinable. Very few individuals can be regarded as either “100%” heterosexual or “100%” homosexual, as individuals can and do have urges that contradict their identified sexual orientation. This makes sense since, according to Queer Theory, desire and urges can co-exist. In other words, transient urges or acts do not establish a final definition of or do not undermine an individual’s sexuality. Sexuality is too dynamic and complex to be summarized by focusing on a few haphazard acts.

Furthermore, such discriminatory behavior, contrary what she is arguing towards, is not universal. Such conduct is seen in people who are too engrained in the belief that heterosexuality is the “default” slate, who believes anything that throws this “standard” into question not does not adhere to the norm and should be criticized. This is a fine example of how “heterosexuality is always in the act of elaborating itself is evidence that it is perpetually at risk, that is, that it 'knows' its own possibility of becoming undone." Judith Butler’s statement from Imitation and Gender Insubordination provides an explanation as to why the heteronormative population is so defensive—they know, consciously or unconsciously, that the heterosexual orientation is fragile. Same sex bonding is promoted or possible throughout society (restrooms, boy/girl scouts, locker rooms), causing the heterosexual to feel threatened and to feel obligated to lash out at anything that challenges their embedded ideals.

Salama also argued “we should instead be more accepting of the people who aren’t as comfortable with working with people who identify as transgender” is illogical. She is claiming that since some people are not receptive towards transsexuals, we should help them not be as accepting. In other words, she is proposing the discriminators should be allowed to discriminate against others. We may not be living in “a perfect world,” as she said, but her advocating accepting people who are uncomfortable with transgender completely contradicts her definition of a perfect world where no one receives undue treatment on account of a specific characteristic or trait. Salama also claimed that the laws were “imposing” when the laws are merely protective. While she acknowledges that transgenders are discriminated against, she fails to realize that if such laws were not to be established, the people uncomfortable with transgenders would be completely free to discriminate against transgenders. Even with laws that promote gender and racial equality, the glass ceiling, a subtle and almost transparent barrier that prevents the majority of minorities and women from being promoted in management as the upper echelons of corporate America is dominated by Angelo-Saxon males, still exists.