Marriage Equality and Semantics

[steepholm]

A few weeks ago, I posted a 'thought for the day' on Facebook:

"To claim that calling trans women 'women' is oppressive to other women is much like claiming that to call gay marriage 'marriage' is oppressive to heterosexuals.

In fact, it's the exact same argument."

That got (by my modest standards) an unusual number of 'Likes', and indeed I stand by it - though if I'd not been in aperçu mode I might have underlined the fact that I wasn't claiming that objecting to trans women being called "women" was in all respects like objecting to marriage equality, simply that this particular argument - that it somehow hurt those who had traditional "possession" of the term in question - was the same in both cases. It seemed worth saying because there are plenty of people who appear willing to give that argument houseroom when it's applied to trans people, while vocally dismissing it in the case of marriage. I might have expanded on this over on FB had anyone given me a chance by disagreeing with my post, but in fact no one did.

I'm grateful then to stormdog's post here for bringing it back to mind today by raising what seems to me an interesting and worthwhile point. stormdog puts the problem thus:

I'm a little bit annoyed by people saying that the legalization of same-sex marriage will have absolutely no effect on hetero marriage. That isn't true, and making that statement is dismissive of the opposition. Dismissing people's feelings doesn't help to create dialogue; it creates hostility.

This seems to me to be true - but I can see why people supporting marriage equality don't want to go there, because a) the effect is pretty small, to the point of negligibility for many people, and b) the effect (such as it is) can too easily be spun as "oppression", even if it's actually positive. In terms of the broad-brush public debate, the game isn't worth the candle.

But we're not about broad-brush public debate here on Steepholm island; on the contrary, our ambition is to reproduce the Bayeux tapestry using navel fluff alone (only this time Harold wins). Small effects are interesting. But what is the nature of that effect, and how (asks stormdog) can one persuade those with a traditional conception of marriage that it is not an adverse one for them? Here's an edited version of what I replied at stormdog's LJ:

We're not talking about a zero-sum game or indeed any kind of competition. That kind of thinking, where there are only a certain number of rights to go round and if somebody wins new ones then someone else must necessarily have lost others, is a big part of the problem.

Perhaps a better analogy would be what T. S. Eliot said in 'Tradition and the Individual Talent' about the effect of new works on the existing canon:

What happens when a new work of art is created is something that happens simultaneously to all the works of art which preceded it. The existing monuments form an ideal order among themselves, which is modified by the introduction of the new (the really new) work of art among them. The existing order is complete before the new work arrives; for order to persist after the supervention of novelty, the whole existing order must be, if ever so slightly, altered; and so the relations, proportions, values of each work of art toward the whole are readjusted; and this is conformity between the old and the new. Whoever has approved this idea of order, of the form of European, of English literature, will not find it preposterous that the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past. And the poet who is aware of this will be aware of great difficulties and responsibilities.

Your sense that same-sex marriage affects straight people too is right in a similar way, I think, because (just like Eliot's literary works) we all exist within a complex web of relationships and understandings, and the language we use is a communal (though not finite) resource. I think if we could persuade people that what they see as a dilution or adulteration of that resource is an enrichment in which they share then we would have done a good day's work. We might point out that although, as Donne wrote, "any man's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind", the reverse also holds true.

And, of course, just as one can make that point about conceptions of marriage, one can make it too about conceptions of "woman" and "man". To coin a phrase, it's the exact same argument.

Comments

[lilliburlero]

I can quite understand why campaigners didn't go there, but I hope that marriage equality will, to an extent, undermine the institution of marriage: if men can marry men and women women, it becomes more difficult to understand marriage in patriarchal terms.

[kalypso]

I have never married, and do not expect to marry. But I always felt that there would be something imperfect about marriage to a man when I had no option of marrying a woman and he had no option of marrying a man. So my happiest moment at my niece's wedding came when the registrar explained that marriage was the union of two people. Somehow, that made it more powerful. New, improved marriage! My niece had a completely free choice and chose this particular individual who happens to be a man!

And I suppose, to pursue the analogy, that I do feel about trans friends "She could have been any gender but she chose to be a woman!" (or he chose to be a man, of course, but I know fewer of them).

I like your idea of the acceptance of trans people corroding normative gender categories, though.

[fengirl88.livejournal.com]

I like this argument very much, especially the inspired use of Eliot (and indeed Donne).

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Everything you and stormdog say about what is claimed as "an effect on hetero marriage" is a change in the concept of marriage. This is not denied by supporters of same-sex marriage. It is not, however, an effect on hetero marriage or hetero marriages. Opponents of same-sex marriage have repeatedly claimed that it is, and they have repeatedly been unable to substantiate this when pressed, and nothing that stormdog says changes that.

The real belief seems to be that marriage is a sort of club, and they want to keep the riff-raff out. But married people as a group do not form a club. Each marriage is an individual club with two people in it (if it's not poly). Even children are in a sense external to the club of the married partners (which is one reason why the post-facto claim that marriage is all about procreation is nonsense).

This is where there is a slight difference between [trans women/women] and [same-sex married people/married people]. Married people don't form a club, but women do. There is such a thing as women-only spaces; there is not really such a thing as married-people-only spaces. The argument that trans women don't belong in women-only spaces seems to me to be based on fundamental misunderstanding of trans experiences; but I can see the relevance of the concern, in a way that seems utterly irrelevant to hetero married people looking at homo married people.

[particle-man6.livejournal.com]

"To claim that calling trans women 'women' is oppressive to other women is much like claiming that to call gay marriage 'marriage' is oppressive to heterosexuals.

In fact, it's the exact same argument."

Mind if I quote that on fb? I don't know what facebook appellation to attribute it to (but could attribute it to your lj one if you wish - whatever you prefer).

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I still have not heard a convincing argument about why gay people being able to legally marry threatens het marriages. I HAVE heard a lot of emotional heat, but not a single reason that makes sense.

One of my LJ readers posted a bitter screed about how the leftwing has now pandered to "sexy times" with that ruling. I didn't respond, as the post is angry and bitter, and makes no sense: the person cannot see that "sexy times" existed long, LONG before the ruling. Now the people involved can actually settle down to have a family in the eyes of the law. How is that sexy times?

I like the other quote so much I have to go find you on Twitter now so I can retweet it. (Still trying to get used to twitter. not having a whole lot of luck.)

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

I like this very much. :)

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

I think what's actually going on is that same-sex marriage isn't possible to reconcile with patriarchal marriage. It can't be used as a way to control women.

[vschanoes.livejournal.com]

I mean to be dismissive when I say that, though--it's not a bug, it's a feature. I find that argument so specious, so unable to be supported by any of its proponents in any specific way beyond smoke and bluster, that dismissing it is precisely what I mean to do.

And that may well generate hostility, but you know, what goes around comes around--bigots generate a fair amount of hostility themselves. I've never claimed to take the high road.