Michael Abrahams | My complicated LGBT advocacy

I am a human-rights advocate. As such, I empathise with and speak out against injustices affecting vulnerable communities and their members, such as children, women and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) folks. I do not tolerate bigotry, and the LGBT community has been a persistent lightning rod for it. So strident has been my advocacy that in 2016, J-FLAG, Jamaica’s LGBT rights organisation, named me ally of the year.

However, despite my advocacy, there are narratives from some community sectors that I do not subscribe to. The LGBT community is by no means a monolithic one. The ‘LGB’ refers to sexual orientation, while the ‘T’ concerns gender identification. The most appropriate acronym is probably ‘LGBTQIA+’, an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual, with the additional ‘+’ representing all the other identities, such as non-binary, not encompassed in the acronym. In other words, anything other than cis-heterosexual.

CONCERN

One of my concerns is attempts by some in the trans community, especially some trans women, to neutralise femininity and enter women’s spaces, literally and figuratively. Women have fought for centuries for equality and to obtain certain rights. Now some people born with penises, who have reached puberty as males, are demanding to be allowed to run and swim against women and to fight them in boxing and martial arts sports. Even when given the opportunity to use a gender-neutral bathroom, some transgender women insist on using those designated for females, even if it makes some women uncomfortable. There is also some insistence to change certain words and expressions, some that women have held dear, to gender-neutral ones. For example, there is a recommendation that the word ‘breastfeeding’ be changed to ‘chestfeeding’. One organisation even recommended calling the vaginas of transgender men ‘bonus holes’.

The desire to promote tolerance and inclusivity is understandable. However, disagreeing with some of these narratives does not necessarily mean being hateful, bigoted or ‘phobic’. For example, not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is malicious. Some simply believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I have no issue with same-sex marriage. But I think people have a right to express their views respectfully without fear of being labelled. I recall when same-sex marriage was legalised in the US. I called a gay friend and asked him how he felt about it, only to be told he disagreed with it, even though he is gay and certainly not homophobic. Another example is the narrative that transgender women are women (and transgender men are men). Many do not agree with that, not because they are bigoted, but because they just do not buy into that concept.

Unfortunately, I see that views that do not correspond with some statements coming out of the LGBT community are often dismissed by advocates, and proponents of those views run the risk of being marginalised. I recall an incident where a Christian girl was asked by a teacher at her school what she thought about same-sex marriage. She replied that she thought it was a sin. Subsequently, her mother was contacted and informed that there would be consequences for the child. In another case, a boy was punished at his school for wearing a T-shirt stating, ‘There are only two genders’.

NOT IMMUNE

And members of the LGBT community are not immune. An example is popular transgender commentator Blaire White. She said she finds it “quite insulting” when members of the trans community consistently push the narrative that “trans women are women”. According to White, “trans women are trans women”, and being a transgender woman is a “specific state of being”. But White has been harshly attacked by members of the trans community, and has received death threats for some of her views. Similarly, a lesbian friend of mine was called transphobic for stating that she would not date a transgender woman. In other words, she would rather date a person with a natural vagina than someone with a penis or surgically created female genitalia. There are even reports of gynaecologists being criticised for declining to manage transgender women. It is absurd to berate these physicians, as transgender women do not possess natural female genitalia. So, what is the point?

And this is how strident LGBT activists and allies have the potential to negatively affect the public’s perception of the community and its members. When people feel their opinions are being censored and their rights are being taken away from them, such as the right to disagree, there will be a pushback. Some observe the normalisation of what they perceive as abnormal or pathological and are deeply disturbed by their observations. To not offend a few, narratives and definitions are created that offend many, and they resent it.

As a human-rights advocate, I champion freedom of speech. I believe people should be able to share their opinions without fear of being persecuted. But if I promote free speech, it must be for all, not just selected groups. And this is now an issue that is causing me much discomfort. People who disagree with some statements from the LGBT community are being punished and ‘cancelled.’ Some are only concerned with the feelings and comfort of LGBT folk and will disregard the discomfort and even rights of others.

I continue to be an ally of the community. I will speak out against harassment of and discrimination against its members. But I cannot honestly say I agree with and support all the actions and statements of its members. We should be able to express our differences of opinion regarding sexuality and gender without rancour. Those who crave tolerance ought to exhibit tolerance themselves.

Michael Abrahams is an obstetrician and gynaecologist, social commentator and human-rights advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and michabe_1999@hotmail.com, or follow him on X, formerly Twitter, @mikeyabrahams.