Week 4 critical analysis

Intersectional Chapter, p. 1

Introduction

The fourth edition of this book emerges in the latter half of a decade of tumult with

respect to the issues represented in this section on sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression1.

Legal and political contestation regarding the civil rights of trans* people, the increased assault

on women’s bodies and the power to control them, the violence enacted toward queer folks in

nightclubs and public policy, and an overall retrenchment of masculinity and its concomitant

rigidly constructed gender role(s) all have rendered this new edition timely indeed. This is not to

say that these issues have been absent or less toxic in the last century of U.S. history and national

policy, but instead points out that in a period of presumed “post-race,” “post-gender,” and “post-

anything social justice”, our nation’s public discourse demonstrates that we are living in anything

but that.

In previous editions of this book the three major content areas within this section were

presented separately. In the late 1990s, during increased attention to identity politics,

distinguishing between sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression, this subdivision was

perhaps a reasonable way to organize the content since it mirrored the prevailing narratives

regarding sexism, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LBG) issues, and trans* issues. In the context of

this new updated edition, however, there is a far more complicated conversation (academic and

activist alike) about gender, sexuality, queerness, and the ways these lived experiences overlap.

As a result, the “siloing” of these areas of study and activism no longer works, and in fact would

actually undermine the liberatory ideas and progressive activism that this more complicated and

overlapping lens has fomented.

Having said that, however, we also choose to not collapse all three distinct forms of

oppression into a singular form because to do so ignores the histories of different social

movements that shaped them. Thus, we acknowledge the overlap and interconnection between

the social movements and simultaneously want their histories to be viewed in their own context

and in relation to other social movements. A combined section allows for a more specific focus

on the shared root power structures, the parallel ways these forms of oppression reinforce each

other, and the possibilities for deep social change when holding all three of these issues in a

connected way. Much like a prism that shows both the separate wavelengths of light and their

combined illuminating effect, this section offers readings that are both specific to each of these

three forms of identity and the corresponding oppression, and intersectional with respect to the

connections between these forms of oppression. As such, we ask that the reader hold these

individual pieces up to the light and observe the way each article speaks to the larger and more

profound dynamics in play.

Oppression directed against all women (sexism), LGB people (heterosexism), and trans*

people (trans* oppression) are both distinctive and interlocking because we all have multiple

identities that are salient at different times and for different reasons. What connects these forms

of oppression is the socially constructed and ruthlessly enforced binary systems of gender and

sexuality that divide people along strictly demarcated boundaries into either/or categories

(men/women, heterosexual/queer, gender normative/gender subversive) that are then used to

rigidly define societal norms. When these socially-constructed binary oppositions are then

connected to societal power, they serve to establish and maintain hierarchical borders of power

and oppression that privilege groups and individuals constructed as “dominant” while

1 We use trans* as a method of consistency with Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (3rd edition). Although there are

conflicting opinions within and across trans* communities about the use of the asterisk, we use it to signal complexity and

variation of self and collective definitions, and draw attention to trans communities (Tompkins, 2014).

Intersectional Chapter, p. 2

marginalizing and disempowering groups and individuals constructed as “subordinate.” The

borders establish a polarity of exclusion in various degrees on one side and inclusion on the

other. This structure is established and enforced on the societal, institutional, and

individual/interpersonal levels (Bell, 2016; Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). The most extreme and

overt forms of oppression are directed against those who most challenge, confound, or contest

these binary frames established within societal norms in their presentation of self and in their

attempts to obliterate the very boundaries from which hierarchies of domination and

subordination stem.

What then is the complexity we are attempting to capture in this section? Gender is fluid,

sexuality is fluid, identities don’t matter when it comes to trying to “pin someone down,” and

identities deeply matter when it comes to framing the personal as political and in helping the

larger society shift in ways that are ever-more just and inclusive of the variation in the lived

human experience. For a long time the emphasis in the social justice literature addressing

sexuality was around seemingly separate L-G-B identities and the desire for political equality.

Emphases were placed on coming out, legal equality like marriage, options of whether to serve

in the military, and fair representation in the media, and those ideas were oftentimes viewed as

distinct from gender, race, (dis)ability, and other social identities. In this chapter we are offering

a view that requires us to consider how all of our social identities interact to influence how we

understand social justice. Our efforts in this section seek to avoid the trappings that have

hindered single identity movements for justice. Instead, we emphasize the overlap in lived

experiences for these three communities while capturing the incredible possibility for change

when working in coalition and solidarity.

Language

Language is complicated, imprecise, and implies conformity of experience (Catalano,

2017), since it is influenced by time, context, interpersonal dynamics, intention, and many other

variables. In an effort to develop a shared understanding of identities, we attempt to approach

terminology with as much contemporary accuracy as possible. At the same time, we

acknowledge that inevitably some of the terminology and definitions we use in this section may

be accepted by some people and contested by others. Also, what was “popular” or most often

used at the time of the first three editions, and even in this updated version, may seem obsolete or

inaccurate by the time of publication. As identity categories are unstable, forever changing,

evolving, and progressing, so too is the language defining these categories. Each person will

make different meanings and develop internal and external language to describe and define their

own multiple social identities. Defining oneself is an essential element of liberation, and thus

our offering of some shared language below is not meant to dismiss how each person views their

experience, but is simply meant to help readers of this section engage more fully with its

contents.

Heterosexism

Heterosexism is the institutionalization of a heterosexual norm or standard, which

establishes and perpetuates the notion that all people are or should be heterosexual, thereby

privileging heterosexuals and heterosexuality, and excluding the needs, concerns, cultures, and

life experiences of lesbians, gay males, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, intersex, and trans*

people. Put simply, heterosexism is at times overt, and at times subtle, through mechanisms of

Intersectional Chapter, p. 3

neglect, omission, erasure, and distortion. Related concepts include heteronormativity (Warner,

1991) and compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980), which establishes the normalization and

privileging of heterosexuality on the personal/interpersonal, institutional, and societal levels. An

example of heterosexism is how adults automatically expect that young people will enter a

heterosexual marriage at some future date, and that they will produce and rear children within

this union. Blumenfeld offers links between historical and contemporary linkages to the

persistance of heterorsexism.

Heterosexism also takes the form of pity, when the dominant group looks upon lesbian,

gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, intersex, and queer people as unfortunate human beings who

“can’t help being the way they are.” Heterosexism forces lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual,

asexual, intersex, and queer people to struggle constantly against their own invisibility, and

makes it much more difficult for them to integrate a positive sexual identity. Heterosexism’s

occasional subtlety, like all forms of oppression, makes it somehow even more harmful and

challenging because it is often harder to define and combat. The dynamics of heterosexism has

led to various iterations of language, such as the more commonly used language of queer. Queer

might seem unsettling to some, which is the precise reason for its use within gender and

sexuality social movements. The term queer is “a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians

and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her

or his sexual practices…” (Halperin, 1995, p. 62). The use of queer (as explored later in queer

theory) is to expand potentiality and resist constructions that align with normative categories

(Halperin, 1995).

Heterosexism’s more active and at times more visible component, called “homophobia,”

is oppression by intent, purpose, and design. Derived from the Greek terms homos, meaning

“same,” and phobikos, meaning “having a fear of and/or an aversion toward,” the word

“homophobia” was coined by George Weinberg (1972). Homophobia can be defined as the fear

and hatred of those who love and are attracted emotionally and sexually to those of the same sex.

Homophobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by

that fear and hatred (Blumenfeld, 2013). Related concepts include “lesbophobia” or

“lesbiphobia,” which can be defined as the fear and hatred and discrimination and acts of

violence stemming from this fear and hatred against women who love women, “Biphobia,”

which is fear, hatred, and oppression directed against bisexuals: people who love and are

emotionally and sexually attracted to people of other sexes; and “Asexual Oppression” is

oppression against asexual people.

Increasingly the term “homophobia” is no longer used in preference to the use of

“heterosexism” as a more inclusive term by expanding its traditional definition. A “phobia” is

commonly known from psychology as an “irrational” or “unreasonable” fear. For example,

some people have irrational fears of insects (arachnophobia), or fear of open spaces, or being in

crowded public places like shopping malls (agoraphobia). On the other hand, some fears (and

forms of prejudice) are taught between individuals and within societies and cultures.

Homophobia falls within this later category. Rather than existing as “irrational” or

Intersectional Chapter, p. 4

“unreasonable” attitudes and behaviors per se, they exist within the realm of learned responses.

Therefore, for purposes of discussion throughout this book and in this section, though we

sometimes use the terms “homophobia” and “biphobia,” we are also employing the term

“heterosexism” in its expanded and more inclusive form.

Sexism

Said most simply, sexism is the use of structural, institutional, and cultural power by

cisgender men (and to a lesser degree trans* men) to deny resources to and extract resources

from cisgender women and trans* women for the sole benefit of men as a group. “Cisgender is

an adjective describing a person whose gender identity is congruent with their gender assigned at

birth” (Catalano & Griffin, 2016, p. 185). The resources in question can be material

(employment, housing, education, and legal) or non-material (safety, respect, voice and

representation), and participation in this system by men can be conscious or unconscious. And

while the action of sexism on individual and interpersonal levels is what tends to be most

discussed in mainstream media, for example, reduce systems of oppression to these levels leaves

the structural and institutional levels unexamined and therefore unchanged. One byproduct of

this overemphasis on individual and interpersonal levels is that it can “seem” like women have

made great strides because there is a woman astronaut or another who is a CEO, but when we

move back and take the picture in more fully, the incredible and long-standing systemic

disparities with respect to gender in the most important areas of power in this country can be

seen. For example, it is an important advancement that some cities finally have women as

mayors, but when we look at the representation of women in the U.S. Senate, we find that the

political system is still substantially skewed. In 2017 women comprised 21% of the U.S. Senate

and 19% of the US House of Representatives. Those suggesting that change takes time will need

to explain why we are approaching a full century of suffrage for women and this is as far as we

have gotten. Thus, when restricting the view of oppression on the individual or interpersonal

levels, the much more influential level of institutional and structural power is obscured and

society mistakenly thinks that women have come farther than they actually have.

The arc of sexism across the globe and in countless societies throughout history is long,

and thus the U.S. is not unique in its lack of full equality and equity for women. Importantly,

however, the U.S. emphatically claims to be a nation where everyone has a set of basic rights

that cannot be abrogated by any external force. As with People of Color and Native peoples

regarding racism and poor/working class communities with respect to classism, those

“inalienable” rights for women are constantly contested, diminished and undermined by systemic

and systematic sexism within every aspect of our society. Throughout the section various

articles (Lorber, Kimmel, Spade, and Serano) speak to the way gender is socially constructed,

making the difference between men and women seem inherent or at least deeply rooted and thus

immutable, thereby setting the stage for sexism to operate structurally and institutionally while

seeming “normal” and “just the way it is.” The action of the system based off of these gender

narratives can be seen in the ways women’s bodies are objectified (West), how women are

Intersectional Chapter, p. 5

assumed to be inferior (Solnit), and the multiple ways women’s lives are impacted by violence

(Katz). Terms that connect to sexism such as misogyny (the hatred of women and the feminine

form), patriarchy (the system of power controlled by men), and androcentrism (the placing of the

male experience at the center of discourse) can also be found throughout the section and at their

core refer to this overall system of male power, privilege, and supremacy that targets women

throughout U.S. society.

Trans* Oppression

For last 20 years or so, there have been a variety of terms used by and for trans* people,

as well as terms that predate popular culture and academic attention, for both self-determination

and administrative enforcement (Spade, 2011). The limitation of trying to pin down trans*

identity to a singular definition means that we have the unintended consequence of

oversimplifying trans*ness and assuming coherence where there may not be any (Catalano,

2017). Yet, in order for us to try to move forward together, we will attempt to provide a working

definition of trans* identity and ways to understand the impact of trans* oppression.

The range of potential gender identities mean there are a limitless number of iterations of

trans*ness for those who resist, reject, and reimagine their gender apart from the categories of

sex and gender assigned at birth (Feinberg, 1996; Stryker, 2008). As previously mentioned, we

use the language of cisgender instead of non-trans* to be affirming of trans* identities (Altman,

2014; Catalano & Griffin, 2016; Enke, 2012; Serano, 2009; Stryker, 2008). To elaborate,

“cisgender individuals are not necessarily gender-conforming in terms of their gender

expression” (Catalano & Griffin, 2016, p. 185). The confusion and conflation of gender, sex,

and sexuality, as previously mentioned within this introduction, makes us believe that sex

dictates gender and gender influences sexual, romantic, and intimate relationships. In reality,

however, these identities are independent variables and fluid within their own right, resulting in a

complex lived reality that cannot be contained by simple classifications.

Trans* oppression is most easily understood as the marginalization and exclusion for

those who do not identify within the category of man or woman; trans*ness in this sense is

rejection of the expectation that there are only men who are biologically male and express

masculinity and there are only women who are biologically women and express femininity

(Bornstein, 1994). Through the lens of the oppressive structure, anyone who transgresses the

boundaries of gender, sex, and gender expression is in some way doing their gender wrong

(Butler, 1990; West & Zimmerman, 1987; Westbrook & Schilt, 2014). Trans* people

experience threats and acts of violence as fueled by the conscious and unconscious fear of those

who disrupt gender norms, which is a price too high for anyone to pay to live their authentic

lives2.

Violence experienced by trans* people are not as simple as individual, but rather as a

2 According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, “Transgender people face extraordinary levels of physical and sexual violence, whether on the streets, at school or work, at home, or at the hands of government officials. More than one in

four trans people has faced a bias-driven assault, and rates are higher for trans women and trans people of color”

(http://www.transequality.org/issues/anti-violence).

Intersectional Chapter, p. 6

systemic and institutionally-supported view that trans*ness is “something” to be eradicated. As a

result of pervasive violence against trans* people, activists have created International Trans Day

of Remembrance (https://tdor.info/), and Chestnut explores and complicates how Trans Day of

Remembrance should encapsulate an intersectional focus on the disproportional violence

impacting trans* women of color. Further, Ware provides insights into how queer, trans*, and

gender non-conforming youth intersect with age, race, and the juvenile justice system.

Misrecognition is a constant psychological stress for those who are misgendered based on

how they look, how they are perceived, and the limitations of how they can identify (Snorton,

2009). Even those trans* people who biomedically transition using various hormonal, surgical,

and social methods to align with more “recognizable” gender norms carry a history of their

gendered pasts through such things such as financial documents, and medical records. While

some trans* people go “stealth” (making their transness as invisible as possible for safety), some

trans* people openly refuse to disregard, hide, or reject the complexity of their gendered past for

others’ comfort. In Spade and Serano, each offer their experiences with navigating various

forms of trans* oppression, and Schulman offers insights into the experience of trans*

collegians. Of course, coalition building is integral to understanding how social justice moves

forward. Chess, Kafer, Quizar, and Richardson demonstrate how gender-inclusive restrooms are

something that is of benefit to everyone.

Theoretical & Conceptual Framework

Today, the reality of gender and sexuality is that none of the previously used frameworks

are enough, not just with respect to inclusivity, but especially in terms of what liberation and

justice for all axes of identity look and feel like. In attempting to explain this larger, liberatory

view, and thus the contours of this section, we want to introduce a few key conceptual

organizers: Critical Trans* Politics (CTP), Queer Theory, Intersectionality, and Feminisms. We

introduce these conceptual and theoretical frameworks as a way to consider the complexities of

genders and sexualities, and to situate the readings that follow. We start with CTP as a means of

entry into queer theory, discuss the potentiality of intersectionality, and conclude with

feminisms.

Critical Trans Politics

In the past few years, we have seen an increase in national media attention on the lives

and experiences of some trans* people. Popular culture has seen trans* visibility through the

work of writer, television hosts, and advocate Janet Mock, activist and actress Laverne Cox, and

former professional athlete and reality television star Caitlyn Jenner. Mock’s book, Redefining

realness (2014) debuted on the New York Times bestseller list. Cox has been featured on the

cover of Time magazine (Steimetz, 2014) and is one of the stars on the Netflix show Orange is

the New Black. Cox has been an outspoken LGBT advocate and did a public interview with bell

hooks about intersectionality and feminism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oMmZIJijgY).

Jenner’s reality television show (I am Cait) brought up some difficult questions about sports,

celebrity, and conservative politics. At the same time, we have seen increased political backlash

through state legislation called “trans bathroom bills” that seek to limit and prevent trans* people

Intersectional Chapter, p. 7

from accessing public restrooms through the false guise of “protecting” young people and

women by labeling trans* people as “sexual predators.” There has also been an increased

awareness in the number of trans* people murdered through media outlets such as The Advocate,

LGBTQ Nation, and the Huffington Post. In effect, the public discourse around trans* identities

has been about pronouns, transition related surgeries, restroom access, and murders. None of

which we would characterize as liberatory.

Now, to be sure, the current public attention on trans* lives does not acknowledge the

long histories of trans* communities. Trans* people have existed throughout histories (Feinberg,

1996; Stryker, 2008). For example, Stryker’s chapter recounts the history of the Compton’s

Cafeteria Riot of 1966, which is still relatively unknown, and historically situates trans* people

as part of intersectional social justice movements. The invisibility of trans* histories is also

addressed in this volume through Meyerowit offers historical roots of trans* oppression through

medical discourse. It is not surprising that histories of trans* lives are invisible when shadowed

by dominant narratives of cisgender conformity and expectations that trans* people’s needs are

aligned with LGB needs. Yet, trans* people have repeatedly been cast aside by LGB political

organizations because they are not politically viable to the current rights agenda (see ENDA,

initial repeal efforts of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and other examples) (Spade, 2011). Often the

refrain has been, “We’ll come back for you,” but that time never comes because the political

climate makes trans* inclusion too difficult and complex. In fact, Critical Trans Politics (CTP)

seeks a “transformation that is more than symbolic and that reaches those facing the most violent

manifestations of transphobia, we must move beyond the politics of recognition and inclusion”

(Spade, 2011, p. 28).

CTP specifically offers ways to explore ideas of solidarity as a form of dismantling and

resisting oppression. We assert that it is imperative to examine how sex, gender, and sexuality

manifest (and get reproduced) through oppression, which are best understood in relationship to

each other (Catalano & Griffin, 2016). “Power is not a matter of one dominant individual or

institution, but instead manifests in interconnected, contradictory sites where regimes of

knowledge and practice circulate and take hold” (Spade, 2011, p. 22). Spade (2011) shapes CTP

as a way to consider the limits of the law and instead consider the impact of how administrative

norms (bureaucracy and regulations) are purportedly neutral, but actually reinforce normativity.

“Law reform tactics can have a role in mobilization-focused strategies, but law reform must

never constitute the sole demand of trans politics” (p. 28). CTP offers (and demands) an

examination of inclusion; Spade argues inclusion only serves to force the most vulnerable into

the normative boundaries already determined by institutions like marriage and family.

Spade's suggestion is to do social justice work focused on the most vulnerable, “centering

the belief that social justice trickles up, not down” (p. 23). Further, Spade (2011) names how the

legal processes of inclusion (hate crime legislation and employment anti-discrimination laws) are

flawed and failed attempts for equality. Instead, these legal methods only force

trans populations to claim and embrace a kind of recognition that not only fails to offer

respite from the brutalities of poverty and criminalization, but also threatens to reduce our

struggle to another justification for and site of expansion of the structures that produce

the very conditions that shorten our lives. (Spade, 2011, p. 223)

As with all forms of oppression, looking in isolation at the interpersonal, institutional, or cultural

manifestations or a singular identity manifestation will only replicate oppression (Bell, 2016).

Queer Theory

Intersectional Chapter, p. 8

Within academic and activist areas, a greater emphasis and discussion is centered on what

has come to be called “queer studies” and an area of critical theory called “queer theory.” As a

theoretical approach, “queer” there encourages an analysis that challenges current notions and

categorizations of what is considered as repressive binary frames of sexuality and gender

constructions. At the heart of queer theory is the principle that “identities” are neither fixed nor

inflexible, and they are not biologically determined, but that instead identities are socially

determined. Queer theorists have insisted that identities comprise many and varied components,

and that it is inaccurate and misleading to collectively categorize people on the basis of one

single element (for example, as “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “heterosexual,” or as “woman,”

“man,” and others).

According to author and theorist David Halperin (1995):

Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.

There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an

essence. “Queer” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the

normative. (p. 62, original emphasis)

The resistance to alignment with normativity means that queerness is potentially for

transgressive and liminal spaces, places, and subjectivities.

Monique Wittig (1980), for example, asserted that the terms “woman” and “man”

constituted political rather than eternal or essentialized categories. Preeminent scholar and social

theorist Judith Butler (1990) addressed what she refers to as the “performativety of gender” in

which “gender” is basically an involuntary reiteration or reenactment of established norms of

expression, an act that one performs as an actor performs a script that was created before the

actor ever took the stage. The continued transmission of gender requires actors to play their

roles so that they become actualized and reproduced in the guise of reality, and in the guise of

the “natural” and the “normal.”

The act that one does, the act that one performs, is, in a sense, an act that has been going

on before one arrived on the scene. Hence, gender is an act, which has been rehearsed,

much as a script survives the particular actors who make use of it, but which requires

individual actors in order to be actualized and reproduced as reality once again. (Butler,

1990. p. 272)

“Gender,” therefore, is a taught and learned response, and sustained in the service of

maintaining positions of domination and subordination. Not only are the categorical binary

frames man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual and bisexual, and gender conforming/gender non-

conforming inaccurate, but they also leave no space for those who do not fit within these neat

and oppositional categories. For example, “intersex3 is a general term used for a variety of

factors in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit

3 Though many experts estimate the number of intersex people at between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births, since there are many factors in defining who may be considered intersex, no precise estimate can be determined (Intersex Society of North America:

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency)

Intersectional Chapter, p. 9

the typical definitions of female or male” (Intersex Society of North America). The binary

frames make their existence rendered invisible, even an impossibility. Similarly, trans* people

resist, reject, and often confound gender norms and sex categories, and thus they experience

violence, marginalization, and other manifestations of oppression as a result of measures to

maintain the dominance of cisgender and normative notions of gender (gender normativity).

In the case of gender, the binary imperatives actually lock all people into rigid gender-

based roles that inhibit creativity and self-expression, and therefore, we all have a vested interest

in challenging and eventually obliterating the binaries. The existence of dominance aligns with

patriarchy (male dominance), heterosexual privilege, and gender normativity. Within a

patriarchal system of male domination, some cisgender heterosexual male bodies matter more,

while “othered” bodies matter less. These “othered” bodies (including female, trans*, and

intersex bodies) violate the “rules” for the assumed reproduction and maintenance of the

dominant patriarchal system. Of course, in this system, people with disabilities, people of color,

and other identities are also deemed as “other” to be misaligned with normativity aimed to serve

patriarchy.

Butler (1993) reminds us that the term “abjection” is taken from the Latin, ab-jicere,

meaning to cast off, away, or out. On a social level, abjection signifies someone who is

degraded, stigmatized, or cast out. Butler states that “we regularly punish those who fail to do

their gender right,” and similarly punish those who fail to do their “race” right. Doing one’s

“race” right often depends on doing one’s socioeconomic class right. The regulatory regimes and

categories of “sex,” “sexuality,” “gender,” “ability,” “race,” and “class” are connected, and these

connections are maintained by systems of oppression.

Intersectionality

A third key area of the theoretical framework informing this section is what is called

“intersectionality.” The term is most often attributed to Dr. Kimberle Crenshaw’s (1991) article,

but it is likely that Dr. Crenshaw’s articulation represented a formalizing of what was a long-

standing understanding in feminist, queer, and communities of color. Audre Lorde (1984)

regularly spoke to the ways that both the impacts of systems of oppression cross over each other

and often compound their effects on the lives of individuals and groups, as well as the shared

roots of systems of oppression and how they serve to reinforce each other at a core level.

Examples include the intensified oppression of trans* women of color versus White trans*

women (Kacere), or how abortion and family planning resources are accessed more by women of

color than White women of all economic backgrounds (Sherman, 2016).

Focusing on the dynamics of three forms of oppression can add complexity to the work

of reading and teaching this section, it also better prepares those engaging with this section how

these issues play out in the “real world.” No one is merely their gender or their sexuality.

Rather, these identities and their concomitant dynamics are constantly in play, and thus an

intersectional approach helps ground the reader’s experience in a “lived” manner, effectively

speaking an even deeper truth to power and offering a more sophisticated pathway to liberation

and social justice.

Our theoretical framework allows us to consider how sexism, heterosexism, and trans*

oppression interlock and support each other. The necessity of utilizing intersectionality as a

Intersectional Chapter, p. 10

theoretical framework is because it

reflects an ongoing intellectual and social justice mission that seeks to (1) reformulate the

world of ideas so that it incorporates the many contradictory and overlapping ways that

human life is experienced; (2) convey this knowledge by rethinking curricula and

promoting institutional change in higher education institutions; (3) apply the knowledge

in an effort to create a society in which all voices are heard; and (4) advocate for public

policies that are responsive to multiple voices. (Dill & Zambrana, 2009, p. 2)

Our section utilizes this framework to highlight how all forms of oppression support the

existence of each other, do not manifest in the same way for people of similar identities (context

matters), and marginalized identities disrupt the “naturalizing” assumptions of “normal” (Bell,

2016; Crenshaw, 1995; Johnson, 2006; Young, 1990).

The framework of intersectionality attends to identity while not focusing on the

individual (Collins, 2009). Our aim of utilizing intersectionality is to allow for a more complex

and nuanced understanding of how systems of oppression operate, moving beyond the individual

focus. “Intersectionality attends to identity by placing it within a macro-level analysis that ties

individual experience to a person’s membership in social groups, during a particular social and

historical period, and within larger, interlocking systems of advantage and access”

(Wijeyesinghe & Jones, 2014, p. 11). In this way, we can utilize a metaphor of an array of

mirrors as a way to communicate the complexity of intersectionality and multiple identities.

Imagine an octagonal room (8-sides) and each wall is covered by a mirror. If you were to

stand in the center of the room, then you would have 8 images of the singular self; realistically

speaking, if you had sight, you would need to choose which mirrors to face since there is a

practical limit of how many images you can face at a time (one to three, depending on the size of

the room). If each mirror represents one of our social identities, then you would be examining

either a singular identity or a few identities. At the same time, you would also be able to see

other images of yourself that show up “behind” the image in front of you, which are images

projected from the mirrors that surround you. For us, this is a way to think about an individual’s

multiple identities, since conceptually it is difficult to simultaneously think of them all at any

given time. The mirror we face represents a salience of identity, and our experience of salience

might be related to various dynamics such as context, time, and location.

Our image is how we might understand ourselves as an individual, which is shaped by

how we were taught to view ourselves. The mirror metaphor is more complex than an individual

understanding of identity. The construct of a mirror is a way to recognize how the culture

influences how we understand and shape the images we make of ourselves, and the walls are the

institutions that support those images.

“Intersectionality frames all identities as being mutually constituted, meaning that social

identities are not discrete entities that are isolated from the influences of all others”

(Wijeyesinghe & Jones, 2014, p. 15). In this way, the constructions of our social identities are

shaped by the presences of each other’s in how we are constituted by culture, time, history, and

context. Our efforts toward liberation are not singular social movements, and our aim is to open

up the possibilities of locating the role of systems that influence our inability to move towards

social justice.

The work of intersectionality reminds us that it “becomes less about locating oneself

within an intersectional framework and more so about using intersectionality to understand the

experiences of others and the social structures that perpetuate privilege and oppression”

(Wijeyesinghe & Jones, 2014, p. 16-17). Thus, its values in using intersectionality in the

Intersectional Chapter, p. 11

formation of this section are threefold. First, it avoids oppression olympics that so often arise

from a siloed approach to social justice work. Too often we end up in interpersonal dynamics of

oppression in the attempt to determine “who has it worse,” especially when it came to getting

access to sparse resources. Second, intersectionality connects this section more effectively to the

other sections of this book. We are able to understand how existence and maintenance of sexism

serves to support the existence of racism and classism, for example, when we assume that it was

“liberating” for women to have the opportunity to work when women of color and poor women

of all races had always needed to work to survive. Third, intersectionality sets right long-

standing histories where the lack of intersectionality wrought incredible harm on already

marginalized populations.

Intersectionality allows the reader to see more easily the connections of this section to

other sections, and thereby gain an even better sense of what is happening in our entire society.

Knowing parts of the whole is helpful, but seeing how all those parts fit together to make the

whole what it is, is the only way that we can collectively and substantially achieve social justice.

As such, the connections between sexual oppression, gender oppression, and racial oppression,

economic oppression, ableism, and the other sections in this book should be clearer in this

edition of the book than any other. The emphasis on intersectionality with respect to the three

areas addressed in this section serves as amends for all the failings of movements (i.e. the first

two waves of the “women’s movement” with respect to women of color), the narrow views of

theorists (i.e. trans* academic theory being largely White in its early iterations and somewhat

disconnected from activist and everyday roots in the ivory towers), and the biased leadership

around specific issues (e.g., the fact that “marriage” was largely a political imperative for

professional middle class queer folks and had little relevance to those who are poor and working

class).

It is deeply false to act as if intersectionality is a “new” theory. Instead it needs to be

framed as an “it’s about time” move in the field and in this section. In this end, however, the

greatest power of intersectionality is in its capacity to envision a very new world – a world in

which folks are liberated along all lines of identity and where systems of oppression and

privilege do not thwart the best of our human capacity. We hope the reader will see that

liberatory horizon in the intersectional voices in this section and follow their leadership as we

collectively organize for social justice.

Feminisms

The implications of the above intersectional framing can be seen quite powerfully when

considering what the term “feminism” means and what the “feminist” movement is and has been

in the U.S. for over 150 years. The readings by Angela Davis and bell hooks speak clearly to a

complicated, multi-identity understanding of feminism that maximizes its liberatory potential.

Unfortunately, and much to its own detriment, feminism has not always been framed in a

complex and varied manner. In order to get the clearest sense of why this is so, and therefore

why not all women and trans* folks align with mainstream feminism; an exploration of the

history of U.S. feminist movements is necessary.

The first “wave” of feminism began in the first third of the 19th century, culminating at

its best at the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention in Seneca Falls, NY. We say “at its best”

because the platform at that convention had an intersectional focus (issues of race and class were

included) and spoke to the needs of many different women. In the 72 years between that

Intersectional Chapter, p. 12

convention and the passage of the 19th amendment, however, the movement succumbed to

external forces. For example, White southern support of suffrage existed so long as racist and

supremacist racial lines were upheld. As a result, suffrage movements abandoned its

commitment to racial justice and economic justice for all women, resulting in the 19th

amendment providing the vote for White women, but not women of color. While gradualists

said this was a victory toward more global women’s rights, those who were yet again relegated

to the margins found the 19th amendment a reinforcement of the ravages of racism and white

supremacy in the U.S.

Forty-three years later, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique (1963), and the

second wave of the women’s movement took concrete form, albeit again along privileged lines

of race and class and, therefore, largely serving women who were White, middle class, and

heterosexual. Trying to take this movement mainstream, thereby pulling in a broader base,

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” and other such pithy slogans emerged as

the public face of the movement in the 1960s and ‘70s. A radical, engaged, and vocal faction of

this movement including women of color, lesbians, and poor women could not as easily be

eclipsed this time around, and despite itself, this movement served to advance a broader and

more powerful agenda regarding the inherent rights of all women than did the first wave. And

still, the seduction of privilege and power left the mainstream movement as one that largely

served middle-class white women. In similar fashion, more recent liberal feminism has

brandwashed the notion of women “leaning in” rather than changing the systems of White

supremacist heteropatriartchy (hooks, 2015; Smith, 2016) in the corporate sphere and elsewhere.

Out of the tension and resistance to mainstream ideas of feminism, more specific forms of

feminism such as Black and Women of Color, radical, lesbian-separatist, eco-, and Marxist, just

to name a few, have arisen. None of these have occupied the center with respect to feminist

organizing or even feminism in the academy, but their contributions have been and continue to

be critical to the process of de-centering privileged identities within feminism and pushing for

greater inclusion and deeper analysis.

Learning from history can be painful and fruitful all at once. Starting in the 1990s and

leading to today, a more complicated, inclusive and therefore challenging “third wave” of

feminism has emerged with demands that are at once reaching across identity spectra, focused on

systems change, and speaking deep truth to the harm that socially-constructed gender roles do in

our society. This third wave is largely led by women of color, focuses on intersectionality, and

has strong ties to grassroots activism. Rinku Sen’s piece in this section is an example of the

nature of this third wave feminism and the challenges of organizing it, while also positing the

hope that lies within it for coalition building with trans* activists, with advocates for economic

justice, with climate justice and environmental activists, and with those who seek racial justice in

this country. Organizers and leaders like Winona Laduke, and the late Wangari Maathai do not

see feminism as separate from other social justice issues, but rather as a tapestry wherein all the

challenges of our lives can be woven in, seen, understood, and strengthened by our shared human

bonds. As such, contemporary feminism is deeper than just the radical notion that women are

people; it is the even more radical notion that oppression is anathema to our humanity, and that it

is deeply possible, perhaps even probable, that human society can and will live without

oppression and thrive in a shared commitment to freedom.

Conclusion

The readings we have selected for the fourth edition are largely U.S. focused in legal,

Intersectional Chapter, p. 13

ideological, and geographical contexts, and we openly acknowledge that our U.S.-centric

selections are a limitation. This drawback might be quite apparent given that we live in an

increasingly global community where the issues covered in this section vary greatly as evidenced

by the fact that norms, values, laws, policies, and other factors vary significantly by country and

even by region within the same country. In some countries around the world, people have fought

long and difficult battles to win rights to marriage, to employment access and security, to live

where they choose and can afford, to inherit property, to define and choose family, to access

affordable healthcare, to serve in the military, to conceive, adopt, and raise children, to

experience a workplace free of sexual harassment, to attend school with measures put in place to

limit bullying and rape culture, and many other benefits those with various forms of gender and

sexual privilege take for granted. In an effort to provide a more global perspective, we offer

Gessen’s analysis of the conditions for LGBTQ people in the Russian Federation.

We hope this intersectional section, along with this entire book, can counter historical

and contemporary troubling realities and serve as a lamp on the path to substantive and

intersectional social change. We invite you to view the readings in this section with curiosity

and a willingness to approach the complicated and compelling content herein. The complicated

nature of the interplay between trans* oppression, sexism, and heterosexism cannot possibly be

captured in a section of this size given that entire university departments are individually devoted

to each area. Therefore, this introduction and the readings in this section are designed to offer an

initial framework that can serve as an effective template for understanding and for taking action.

As mentioned above, all three of these overlapping and still distinct communities are under fire,

and thus we hope this section does more than heighten analysis. Our efforts here are meant to

inspire ongoing, substantial, and sustainable action. As Jamie Utt shares in his piece, everyone’s

liberation is bound up in everyone else’s. Therefore, we believe it is in the best interests of all

marginalized communities to take action and dismantle these systems of oppression so we move

into a future of possibilities, change, and hope.

Intersectional Chapter, p. 14

Works Cited

Altman, D. (1973). Homosexual: Oppression and liberation. New York: Avon.

Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams and

L. A. Bell (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd edition, pp. 3-26). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Blumenfeld, W. J. (2013). Introduction: Heterosexism. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C.

Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, X. Zuniga, Readings for diversity and social

justice, (3rd Edition, pp. 373-379). New York: Routledge.

Bornstein, K. (1994). Gender outlaw: On men, women, and the rest of us. New York: First

Vintage Books.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. NY: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. NY: Routledge.

Catalano, D. C. J. (2017). Resistence coherence: Trans men’s experiences and the use of

grounded theory methods, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,

30(3), pp. 234-244.

Catalano, D. C. J. & Griffin, P. (2016). Sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression: An

integrated perspective. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.),

Teaching for diversity and social justice, 3rd edition (pp. 183-211). New York:

Routledge.

Collins, P. H. (2009). Foreword: Emerging intersections - Building knowledge and transforming

institutions. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class,

and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. vii-xiii). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence

against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in

anti-discrimination law. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.),

Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement, pp. 103-122. New

York, NY: The New Press.

Dill, B. T & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In B.

T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in

theory, policy, and practice (pp. 1-21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Intersectional Chapter, p. 15

Enke, A. F. (2012). The education of little cis: Cisgender and the discipline of opposing bodies.

In A. F. Enke (Ed.), Transfeminist perspectives in and beyond transgender and gender

studies (pp. 60-77). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Feinberg, L. (1996). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Halperin, D. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography, New York: Oxford University

Press.

Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1997). Conceptual foundations for social justice courses. In M.

Adams, L. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A

Sourcebook (pp. 16-29). New York, NY: Routledge.

hooks, b. (2015). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. New York: Routledge.

Intersex Society of North America, (n.d.) How common is intersex?

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power and difference. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossings Press.

Mock, J. (2014). Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More.

New York: Atria.

National Center for Transgender Equality (2017). Anti-Violence.

http://www.transequality.org/issues/anti-violence

Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. London: Onlywomen Press.

Serano, J. (2009). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of

femininity. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Sherman, R. B. (2016). What the War on Reproductive Rights Has to do With Poverty and

Race. Yes! Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/what-

the-war-on-reproductive-rights-has-to-do-with-poverty-and-race-20160525

Smith, A. (2016). Heteropatriarchy and the 3 pillars of White supremacy: Rethinking women of

color organizing. In INCITE! Women of Color Organizing (Eds.), The color of violence:

Intersectional Chapter, p. 16

The INCITE! anthology (pp. 66-73). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Snorton, C. R. (2009). “A new hope”: The psychic life of passing, Hypathia, 24(3), pp. 77-92.

Spade, D. (2011). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of

the law. Brooklyn, NY: South End Press.

Steimetz, K. (2014, June 9). The transgender tipping point: America’s next civil rights frontier.

Time, 22(183), pp. 38-46.

Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender history. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Tomkins, A. (2014). Asterisk. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1/2), pp. 26-27.

Warner, M. (1991). Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29, pp. 3-17.

Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender, Gender & Society, 1, pp. 125-151.

Westbrook, L. & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people,

gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system, Gender &

Society, 28(1), pp. 32-57.

Wijeyesinghe, C. L. & Jones, S. R. (2014). Intersectionality, identity, and systems of power and

inequality. In D. M. Miller (Ed.), Intersectionality and higher education: Theory,

research, and praxis (pp. 9-19). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Wittig, M. (1980). "On ne naît pas femme" [One is not born a woman]. Questions Féministes.

Nouvelles Questions Féministes & Questions Feministes, 8, pp. 75–84.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.