Are Trans Activists Confusing Oppression and Repression? | Trans Sandwiched #10

Today, I want to talk about an idea I have been thinking about quite a lot lately: the confusion resulting from the conflation of oppression, i.e. unfair treatment, and repression in a Freudian sense, which includes things like emotional restraint. Previously, I argued that this idea, originating in the works of critical theorist Herbert Marcuse in the 1950s and 60s, has since become the unconscious wisdom among a wide range of left-wing activists, often leading them to misguided actions. Today, I will specifically look at the effects of the conflation of oppression and repression on trans and LGBT activism.

While the oppression-repression conflation seems to have impacted almost all sectors of leftist activism, the LGBT context is particularly prone to its influence, because injustice regarding sexual orientation is inherently related to repression. For example, allowing straight people to marry, but prohibiting gay relationships, is not only unfair in a social sense, it also causes an unequal burden of repression, because gay people would be expected to restrain their natural desires to a much greater extent than straight people. Thus, in the example of the criminalization of gay relationships, we see that unequal repression is indeed a form of oppression, by definition. However, the key word here is unequal. The problem is that, LGBT activism, which ultimately has its roots in the 20th century campaign to legalize gay relationships, has often forgotten to make a clear distinction between repression itself, and the unequal repression the community was suffering from, the distinction being 'unequal'. Hence, certain factions of LGBT activism have long swallowed the idea that repression equals oppression, and have long idealized a world without repression and restraint of any kind.

I have actually come to believe that this is what is ultimately behind the long-standing divide between so-called 'assimilationists' and radical 'liberationists' (i.e. non-assimilationists) in LGBT activist circles. After all, the labels on their own are a bit meaningless. For example, as someone who championed gay marriage for 15 years, and put this issue at the heart of my politics for quite a while, I was seen by many in the community as an 'assimilationist'. More recently, for prioritizing trans rights that would allow trans people to live better in society, above what I see as pointless philosophy wars, I am again branded as an 'assimilationist' by the same people. However, I don't actually see why my politics is inherently more 'assimilationist' than theirs. If you think about it, being willing to forego gay marriage, and being willing to stay outside mainstream society as a trans person, would definitely reduce the potential of upsetting the ultra-conservative elements of society. So, in a way, we are actually the unapologetically pro-LGBT ones, and they are the conformist ones. It wouldn't make sense to call us the 'assimilationists'!

However, if 'assimilationist' is interepreted as being okay with Freudian repression (as long as it's equal and fair), and 'liberationist' is interepreted as liberation from all repression and restrain, then it suddenly makes sense. After all, marriage is repressive in a Freudian sense, and so is being part of mainstream society, and it makes sense that these anti-repression 'liberationists' wouldn't want those things. Therefore, the self-proclaimed 'liberationists' are basically people who base their whole politics around anti-repression, like Marcuse did, and the people they decry as 'assimilationists' are basically people who reject the Marcusean approach.

The problem with an 'anti-repressive' LGBT politics is that it doesn't actually make life better for LGBT people. The anti-repressive radicals of the 20th century weren't successful with decriminalizing homosexuality in most places. Their very public displays of 'righteous anger' and their deliberate offence against polite society arguably slowed down the progress. Instead, it was the people they decried as 'assimilationists', who tirelessly made their case in a calm and rational manner, who got the job done in the following decades. The same kind of people went on to win marriage equality, by getting the public on their side.

Just as things were getting better, the 'anti-repressive' side of the movement gained an upper hand again, and started using their 'righteous anger' to de-platform people who disagree with them, while accusing those of us who don't support these actions as playing 'respectability politics'. The same 'anti-repressive' activists also support including displays many are uncomfortable with in Pride parades, because that's supposedly liberation from repression. Meanwhile, these activists continue to ignore the rising backlash resulting from their actions among the general public, especially towards the trans community. You know, there really is nothing liberating about antics that alienate the public and make LGBT lives harder in the real world. In fact, I think this approach to 'LGBT liberation' is basically self-defeating.

It's time that we take the question of oppression vs repression in LGBT activism more seriously. Given the moment of backlash but also potential progress on trans acceptance we find ourselves in, this topic is more important than ever. Rather than just accepting the Marcuseans' framing of the question as about 'assimilation vs liberation', we should cut to the actual reason behind our differences. We need to sincerely talk about this question: is an anti-repressive LGBT politics actually productive? Or it is counterproductive? Could appropriate restraint be a good thing, if we want to build a successful movement to make LGBT lives better in the real world?