Andrew Sullivan, Intersectioinalism, LGBT Rights

I'm reacting here to a Facebook stream I started when I did my weekly posting of Andrew Sullivan's blog.  Sullivan's point in the blog, I think, is to explain why the huge gains LGBT folks have made in recent years now seems to be receding.  Sullivan, a self-proclaimed conservative, maintains that the gains were largely due to the efforts of the non-left LGBT community to emphasize its similarity to the more traditional, heterosexual, bible thumping community.  LGBT folks can raise kids at least as well as their heterosexual friends.  LGBT folks can buy into the "American Dream" the same way everybody else can.  LGBT folks can espouse the same patriotic virtues as straight people can, etc.

He, and here's the rub, goes on to say that members of the new left or far left or intersectionalistic millennials have politicized the issue.  Not only must the "traditional" community accept LGBT rights, they must embrace those rights unconditionally.  Not only is same sex marriage legitimate, but it is somehow more legitimate than traditional marriage.  Not only should transgender folks be able to use whatever restroom they damn well please, but anyone who looks under the stall to see if the person next door has his/her feet pointed the same way is by definition a sexist, racist, fascist jerk.  If one does not instantly accept everything the new left is demanding (gender equality, racial equality, an end to economic disparity, an end to all war, etc.), then that person is morally bankrupt and should be condemned.  Sullivan thinks that this brand of Intersectionalism is at least as bigoted as the bigots it is fighting against.

I think Sullivan is right.  The take no prisoner position of the new left is preposterous.  Let me share three anecdotes.

The most recent one happened yesterday.  I discovered that Jake Mendez, a former student, has the lead in HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH at the Aurora Fox.  I hope to make it out there next weekend.  Anyway, I was telling Bud about Jake's good news.  Bud was happy for him, but had never heard of HEDWIG.  As I was in the process of explaining the plot to  him and why the angry inch, it was clear that the idea was an uncomfortable one for him and the chances of him running out to catch the show were slim.  Does that mean Bud is unredeemably bigoted?  In the movie version of HEDWIG (one of my favorite films), when the middle class white folks at the Denny-esque restaurant are outraged by Hedwig's trans act and walk out, does that mean that they were all evil patricians bent on taking away rights?  I don't think so.  When Kathie and I saw the film at the Esquire years ago, we were, I'm fairly convinced, the only straight people there.  After the film, we went to the Blue Bonnet for Mexican food and a former student who spotted us in the audience at the Esquire came up to our table and said, "Hi, Mr. and Mrs. Starkey.  I saw you at the film and wanted to come over and tell you that I'm gay."  With that proclamation, he walked away.  Well, thank you for sharing that.  I thought it was a great moment.  I know some other folks who would have reacted differently.  I don't agree with them, but I understand their position.

Years ago when Franny was the Managing Editor of "The Times-Delphic," Drake's newspaper, she was confronted by a large contingent of black students in an evening meeting with the administration.  It seems that even though a black group won the dance competition (some competition), the paper printed a picture of a white group instead of the black winners.  Outrage!  Franny explained that the picture of the white group was the only art she had that would look good on the front page.  The black group's photos were all (ahem) too dark and would have ended up looking like a smudgy blur on the front page.  I understand the black outrage, but Franny made the only choice she could.  I'm sure many of those black protesters are still convinced that my daughter is a racist.  They're wrong.

Finally, in the early days of Chris' business his company did lots of weddings and his photographer was incredibly gifted and one of Chris' best friends.  He took the photos of Franny's wedding and they were terrific.  However, Chris' photographer friend finally listened to his body and his brain and decided to have a sex change operation.  In the lead up to that operation, the photographer started dressing like a woman because the hormones he was taking made him want to start getting used to his new identity.  The problem was that his appearance pre-operation would have been funny if it weren't so grotesque.  Young brides freaked out at the way their wedding photographer looked (they hadn't seen the quality of her work) and Chris started losing business.  Chris stopped using the photographer and ended up losing a good friend in the process.  Was Chris being a sexist bigot, or was he being a well-intentioned businessman?

Those are the kinds of questions that Andrew Sullivan was wrestling with in his article.  I think they are legitimate.