Gender and Sexual Minorities and their Rights

If anyone assumes that equal rights in America has been reached, do not allow their ignorance to continue. The world today has progressed in science, technology, medicine, and in human rights to a point. But the society that surrounds us today is one that still resists becoming truly equal. The community of Gender and/or Sexual Minorities (GSMs) is under constant fire every day. As some lobby for equal rights others resist this shift in laws and mentality. These people range from gay, to bisexual, to transgender, to non-binary individuals, to asexuals, and a full spectrum of fluid sexual, gender, and romantic orientations that cannot be fully listed. The world is not a black and white place, it is possibly least clear in the world of gender, sexuality, and romance, so many identities are highly individualized as people strive to describe how they feel. America has not made major change to the laws and policies that would allow people the rights they deserve, such as not being discriminated against at work, being able to marry, medical resources such as surgery and hormones, even just sharing health insurance in partnerships. These basic rights are necessary to protect the existence of teens and adults. Without legal rights GSM individuals are portrayed as less than human in the eyes of the state and their society, the potential result of which is the ruin of lives.

The recent history of GSM in its use is relatively short. The term Gender and/or Sexual minorities is another term for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual, and non-binary, community (LGBTQA*), and has gained popularity as an umbrella term for any person who does not identify as straight or cisgender. As can be seen, the current LGBTQA* acronym has grown long and hard to explain, and the inclusion or ordering of letters can vary between sources. This confusion of acronyms has come to be known as the alphabet soup of identities (Bruce), so GSM has become a common alternative.  Compared to such a recent development, the history of the movement for GSM rights can be traced back to the 1960’s in America. The catalyst for the separate movement was the 1969 Stonewall riots in Greenwich Village, located in New York City. When the Stonewall Inn was raided, known gay bars were prone to police activity since homosexual relations were illegal in 1969, it resulted in five days of riots by gay, lesbian, and transvestite individuals against discrimination. This is where the modern GSM movement began as individuals of sexual minorities realized working together for their goals of equality would be more beneficial. Notable progress has been made as many businesses now offer benefits to homosexual couples, or cover the costs of transitioning for transgenders, and certain insurances will cover portions of the costs as well. But controversy has continued over the years as opinions over sexual minority rights are voiced. Homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental illnesses in 1973 (LGBT-Sexual Orientation.), but the stigma has not vanished quickly. The issue has developed into a moral one with facets touching on marriage, adoption, adolescent health, to the acknowledgment of GSM identities as real.

Maybe the most well known aspect of the GSM movement over the years is the fight for same sex marriage rights. In laymans terms this means giving all the benefits hereosexual married couples get, to homosexual couples. Individual marriage laws are the jurisdiction of the states, however, as part of the reserved powers. The federal government will recognize legal same sex marriages but cannot issue licences. As of this writing, nineteen out of fifty states issue same sex marriage licenses. Same sex marriage is the most well known part of the movement, and one of the strongest opposed as well. So called traditional marriage is between a man and a woman who commit to each other, who then may or may not have children. Having children is not mandatory in marriage, but in homosexual couples it is impossible naturally. According to Susan M. Shell, a professor at Boston College, this makes their unions fundamentally lacking “Gay relations bear a less direct relation to the generative act in its full psychological and cultural complexity than relations between heterosexual partners, even when age, individual preference, or medical anomaly impede fertility” (Shell). In this line of thought, a gay marriage is less valuable than an infertile straight marriage, for reasons of biology. However, that same argument also demeans parents who choose to adopt, gay or straight, as if they are not having an impact on the welfare and happiness of their marriage and their children. 

Adoption is a common choice for married couples, but for homosexual pairs it is an uphill battle with many opponents. This argument against gay marriage goes hand in hand with the idea that homsexual parents are unable to be successful and caring parents. “Extending marriage to same-sex couples would leave no other institution to promote the ideal that every parent promises to care for his child” (McConnell). However, in a study done of lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents, no major difference was found in the satisfaction of the parents based on family type alone (Farr and Patterson). When there were issues with child behavior it stemmed from the parenting methods and was spread across all three types of families, the researchers found “The best predictors of child behavior problems were observed competition between parents, and dissatisfaction with child-care labor divisions, which were not associated with parental sexual orientation” (Farr and Patterson). Same sex couples are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual parents, even better in some manners, as that study also revealed evidence that splitting parental duties unevenly with gender roles causes higher dissatisfaction in parents, which lesbian and gay parents were less prone to do (Far and Patterson). Homosexual couples biological generative ability has no relation to their raising of healthy, well behaved, happy, children. In fact they may cherish these children all the more after the intensity of the adoption process itself, when they gain the right to raise a child they never could have connected to without adoption. So a union that wants to raise the next generation, but can only do so through strong will and choice, cannot be classed as a lesser marriage.

These overall difficulties have a negative impact throughout the GSM community, and this influence trickles down until it reaches the newest members, the highly impressionable youth. Adolescents feel the effects of GSM rights looming around them as they strive to find their own selves. I can vouch for this along with many of my peers. When you are exploring your own identity and find it rejected, it fosters fear. The continuing stigma against GSM individuals has lead to horrible bullying and abuse, notably in schools where pre-teens and teens of varying openness about their orientations are harassed. This culture of heteronormality can have dire consequences for its targets such as depression and suicide. “LGB and unsure youths indicated approximately 2 to 3 times the prevalence of SROs [suicide risk outcomes] compared with heterosexual peers” (Stone). As suicide is already a major problem in todays youth, these statistics reveal what a grim reality these GSM youth have to deal with on top of usual adolescent stressors. The pressure that is put on sexual minority adolescents is huge and produces an unhealthy environment. This theme arises because there are few rights in place to protect the GSM community, or the minors who align with its causes, and these adolescents then come under fire from peers and even teachers. “Consistent with this research on adults, LGB youths who reside in counties that have less protective social environments for sexual minorities (e.g., fewer school districts with anti-discrimination policies, lower prevalence of same sex couples) are more likely to attempt suicide and to use tobacco than are LGB youths who reside in more protective environments” (Mustsanski). Anti-discrimination policies are not widespread yet, or do not include GSM in their codes, which equates to fewer resources for these youth when they are in distress.  GSM youths, therefore, are painted as targets for not conforming to the expected normal images society projects. The legal rights ripple through the adolescent world and have a profound impact on all youth in how they perceive the GSM community, and without a continued movement the image will never improve and neither will the conditions GSM youth endure every day.

The headline topics in the GSM movement are usually about religions opposition, the debate over marriage, or the state of our youth. Another vitally important topic, however, is the concepts of gender and sexual minorities themselves, such as recognizing them as legitimate identities, and what each identity can entail. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness, and other identities such as transgender and asexual are frequently pushed under the rug. Much debate begins with the nature of these sexualities, mostly if they are governed by personal choice. “Because a choice is viewed as internal and controllable, individuals subscribing to this view are less favorable towards gays and lesbians, including their right to marry or obtain civil unions” (Whitehead). As long as theories such as this persist it will continue to be difficult to gain equal rights for all GSMs. Misconceptions about the nature of sexuality and gender can hinder the movements progress in the legal sphere.  These non-binary identities are just as important as the LGB ones and need to be recognized in the legal system as well to provide for the health and wellness of these people. “Non-binary sexualities can also be viewed as forming a borderland between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Though the sexual binary is beginning to shift away from its previous hegemonic status, it still remains the dominant sexual schema in the USA” (Callis).  Somewhere along the way in the movement the gay and lesbian portions of the community hit the spotlight, but few look past these well known two, and it causes a disheartening surplus of misinformed people.

The recognition of these non-binaries is vital to drafting policies that will protect and provide for the specific needs of the community. Starting with transgender; a transgender person is one whose preferred gender identity and expression do not match what was assigned at their birth. Like all sexualities and genders it exists in a spectrum; some individuals may change how they dress, act, or change their legal names and pronouns. Others may undergo hormone therapy and surgery to fit their bodies to the gender they prefer. The later process can be very costly but after mental evaluations it is often deemed as necessary, so insurances and businesses need to be able to cover these important costs. Asexuality is another identity that is often misconstrued, but the basic idea is that asexual people do not experience sexual attraction, and this community within the GSM space has only recently become a recognized force. “Aces [Asexuals] say that asexuality, just like sexuality, exists on a spectrum. Most asexuals, when asked, will identify two orientations: a sexual one and a romantic one” (Mosbergen). The asexual spectrum has evolved out the differentiation between sex and romance, creating an even wider spectrum of identities within the GSM community. This infinite spectrum of fluid identities needs to be seen broadly at its true scale it encompases for the rights of GSM individuals to equal cisgender and heterosexual individuals. Otherwise these identities will continue to be disregarded and put aside, never gaining the recognition they deserve. 

Conclusively, it can be said that the GSM movement has a long way to go. But it needs to reach its goals, because without these human rights there are hundreds of thousands of people in the United States who will never see fair treatment. GSM rights are vital to the equality of this nation on a grand scale, from child adoptions, to adolescence, to an adults right to marriage. These are basic human rights and should be fought for until they are acquired. Without them discrimination will only progress as it has for so many years. There has been social change, do not think there has not been, but change needs to occur at a national level. The only way to reach across such an area is through the federal and state governments. The precedence that the law sets influences the social climate of the nation. As rights have slowly been given there are areas where GSMs can live happily, successfully, and peacefully. However, this change is evident with our youth and it needs to happen as rapidly as possible. The discrimination is most prominent as seen with the suicide rates of GSM adolescents. Discrimination is destroying lives for good, and equal rights are the first step in saving these lives. Equal rights will open the doors for representation of various GSM identities, validating how people feel and creating awareness for the community at large so there is less of the wrong information. GSMs are people too and deserve the fair treatment of the governments they live under, and the fairness of the people they are surrounded by everyday of their lives. These are basic human needs and rights, they should not be so hard to obtain, but they are. The long lasting stigma will be hard to overcome but it needs to be done if there is to be true understanding and lawful protection for gender and sexual minorities across the country, and to end this fight for good.

Works Cited

Bruce, Chris. "'LGBT' Transforming into Alphabet Soup?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 Dec. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-tina-bruce/lgbt-acronym_b_1159004.html>.

Callis, AS. "Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer: Non-Binary Identities And The Sexual Borderlands." Sexualities 17.1-2 (n.d.): 63-80. Social Sciences Citation Index. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.
              Farr, Rachel H., and Charlotte J. Patterson. "Coparenting Among Lesbian, Gay, And Heterosexual Couples: Associations With Adopted Children's Outcomes." Child Development 84.4 (2013): 1226-1240. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

"LGBT-Sexual Orientation." American Psychiatric Association. Psychiatry.org. Web. 25 Sept. 2014. <http://www.psychiatry.org/mental-health/people/lgbt-sexual-orientation>.

McConnell, Margaret Liu. "Less Perfect Unions: The Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage That Hasn't Been Tried In The Courts."The American Conservative 10 (2008): 23. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Mosbergen, Dominique. "Asexual Relationships, Masturbation And Romance In The Ace Community (INFOGRAPHIC)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 19 June 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/asexual-relationships_n_3362206.html?1371648830>.

Mustanski, Brian, et al. "Envisioning An America Without Sexual Orientation Inequities In Adolescent Health." American Journal Of Public Health 104.2 (2014): 218-225. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Stone, Deborah, M., et al. "Sexual Orientation And Suicide Ideation, Plans, Attempts, And Medically Serious Attempts: Evidence From Local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, 2001-2009." American Journal Of Public Health 104.2 (2014): 262-271. CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.

Whitehead, Andrew L., and Joseph O. Baker. "Homosexuality, Religion, And Science: Moral Authority And The Persistence Of Negative Attitudes." Sociological Inquiry 82.4 (2012): 487-509. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Sept. 2014.