Arman Sharif: Transphobic speech highlights need for education on gender issues

The now-infamous photo depicting three members of Bruin Republicans’ leadership smiling and clutching unapologetically transphobic­­ signs has made viral rounds on the internet.

These students’ words are reprehensible hate speech: “Get your agenda out of my restroom,” “There are only two genders” and “Transgenderism is a mental disorder.” They did damage that affects an already silenced community, contributing to a toxic campus climate that puts both students’ physical safety and emotional well-being in jeopardy.

But this issue extends beyond just three Bruins and a fringe minority of outwardly transphobic conservatives on a liberal college campus. Even as College Choice just ranked UCLA the No. 6 most LGBT-friendly campus in the U.S. and students increasingly wish to be allies, many still harbor deep misconceptions surrounding the transgender community.

One powerful means of belittling transgender individuals’ identity and issues is through language choice. Transphobic language can work to either explicitly or subtly undermine, erase or attack the transgender community, despite the intentions of those saying them.

The posters, and even ensuing comments that condemned the posters, employed belittling language. For example, while “transgenderism” was problematically written on the original posters, a Facebook commenter jumped in to edit a positive message of “We love transgendered people!” across the three signs and defiantly posted the newly edited rendition. Another commenter said in jest that one of the sign-holders looked like she herself used to be a man, a grossly transphobic statement in itself.

In many cases, there was no malicious intent at play. However, both suffixes of “transgendered” or “transgenderism” imply some sort of temporary condition or illness. “Transgender individuals” works to keep transgender as an adjective – as opposed to “a transgender,” defining a whole person by just one aspect of a complex identity.

These posters further miscategorized transgender identity as a mental disorder. According to the American Psychological Association, the core definition of mental disorder entails that a condition cause significant “distress or disability.” Officially unclassified as a mental disorder in 2012, just as homosexuality was in 1973, the identity only brings distress to individuals when they encounter anti-transgender discrimination.

Another misconception these posters broach is that gender is binary, where we can only pigeonhole people into strictly male or female identities. In reality, as something created by society, gender identity lies on a spectrum and is a continuum of different roles and expectations society has assigned. Some identify somewhere in between ends of the spectrum, align with bits of both or nothing at all.

In regard to the third poster’s suggestion that an “agenda” is being imposed onto restrooms, the purpose of gender-neutral bathrooms is to provide options and safety for everyone, regardless of gender identity. Among current national controversy involving gendered bathrooms, it is a myth that allowing people to use restrooms of the gender with which they identify would put others at risk for assault. Transgender individuals have been using our restrooms all along to – surprise – use the bathroom, and are entitled to the same privacy and safety others have a right to. Policing people based on outdated gender norms and barring them from using the restroom of the gender they identify as plays into its own transphobic, gender nonconforming-phobic agenda.

The reverse, however, is almost always true – society is harmful toward the transgender community. Among a slew of abysmal statistics, around four in 10 transgender people will attempt suicide in their lifetimes. Twenty percent will end up on the streets at some point in their lives, and half will be victims of sexual assault. The average life expectancy of a transgender woman of color hovers at an appalling 35 years old.

Alex Rhim, outgoing Bruin Republicans’ external vice president, personally agreed in a recent submission to The Bruin that “the movement against transgender equality has failed to raise a legitimate argument for its position,” and Rhim confirmed in an email statement that the photo does not represent the club’s stance as an organization. The club further issued no official stance on the signs in a Facebook statement, citing right to free speech and saying the topic is open to discussion, agreement or disagreement. But it’s worth noting that the three Bruin Republicans members pictured in the controversial photo will move on to assume executive positions in the club next year.

While painted as opinions in a larger scheme of productive discourse, these “opinions” shown by these three members of Bruin Republicans are not part of healthy debate – the words written on these posters come from a place of blatant ignorance on gender issues, and failure to learn about another group of people. They perpetuate the same binary, antiquated way of thought that society has ingrained into our minds since day one, leaving no room for expanding our knowledge.

Aubrey Sassoon, co-coordinator of Transgender UCLA Pride and a fourth-year anthropology student who identifies as a lesbian and queer transgender woman, said, “I believe in the speech on those posters being protected not just because some rulebook tells me, but because if we were to silence that speech without any kind of open dialogue then that would do nothing to actually bridge these divides and, if anything, these issues would fester.”

Sassoon further captured the crux of all social justice issues, adding, “If I don’t forgive them, then I continue assuming that they cannot change, that they did it out of an evil and cruel intention, which I don’t believe they meant. I think they did it because the belief systems they have learned to understand the world through are inadequate to understand my identities, but the same can be said for my own belief systems.”

Condemning different forms of bigotry that materialize on and beyond our campus in isolation will never be adequate. It takes compassion and a cautious empathy that asserts: Although I can try to put myself in your shoes, they’ll never fully fit – but I acknowledge and respect them regardless. It requires fundamentally challenging systemic issues toward engendering more inclusive Facebook comments, more knowledgeable daily conversations and in this case, more worthwhile platforms of exercising your freedom of speech through social advocacy.