HOMOPHOBIA AND TRANSPHOBIA:

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES TO REDUCE DISCRIMINATION

AGAINST TRANSGENDER PERSONS

by

Walter L. Williams

Professor of Anthropology and Gender Studies

University of Southern California

general session speech at

Harry Benjamin International Gender Association

Vancouver, Canada

September 11, 1997

My work has been primarily focused on prejudice against gay and lesbian people. This is the topic of the book that I and Professor James Sears co-edited for Columbia University Press, titled Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia: Strategies That Work. We tried to include a chapter specifically on transphobia, and we were very disappointed that the appointed author of that chapter was not able to complete the chapter. Nevertheless, I think many of the points made in this book apply directly to the question of prejudice against transgendered persons. I want to suggest some points that can attempt to reduce prejudice and discrimination against transgendered persons.

In the book, we define heterosexism as "a belief in the superiority of heterosexuals or heterosexuality evidenced in the exclusion, by omission or design, of non-heterosexual persons in policies, procedures, events, or activities. We include in our definition not only lesbians and gay men but [also] other sexual minorities such as bisexuals and transgendered persons" (p.16). Heterosexism is a component of a broader ideology of sexuality and gender which sees heterosexuality of one male with one female as superior, with the validity of all other forms of sexual and gender variance being stigmatized, denigrated, and denied. Given this definition, the concept of heterosexism is inclusive of much of the prejudice existing against transgender persons.

The other aspect of transphobia is gender dualism, a belief that only two genders should be recognized. The idea that one's gender identity is not the same as one's birth sex, or that there might be more than two genders, is anathama to gender dualists. Because of the close association of negative reactions against persons who love the same sex, and against persons who violate norms of gender dualism, there is a close relationship between homophobia and transphobia. Both sexual nonconformists and gender nonconformists suffer from forms of prejudice that are part of the larger pattern of heterosexism existing in society.

This perspective is greatly different from the dominant attitude toward sexual minorities that previously existed. The nonconformist was counseled to conform to society's heterosexist majority, to change to become like other people. That conformist pressure took the form of forcing the transgender person to accept the gender role of their birth sex, or of getting them to change over completely to "the opposite" gender. Both of these conformist pressures are based on the idea that there are only two acceptable genders, man and woman, and every person must be one or the other. The philosophy of gender dualism is threatened by ambiguity and multiple choices. In gender dualism, there is no in-between.

Rather than focusing on changing the transgender person to fit into society, the perspective I want to suggest today is the need to change societal prejudices to accomodate the simple reality that people differ. I don't want to spend time trying to prove the existance of prejudice against transgendered persons. We all know this prejudice exists, and that it is a problem. Instead, I want to spend my limited time with you, focusing on what can be done to reduce this form of prejudice.

Let me begin by telling you about a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1994. I was an invited participant at this conference, which was sponsored by the Wayne Placek Trust. Wayne Placek was a gay man, who upon his death left his entire estate to establish a Trust Fund that would promote research which would be of benefit to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered communities. The trustees of the estate chose fifty scholars working in this area to advise them on what kind of research most needs to be done. The task of this Placek conference was to come up with a consensus of the most important topics which need future research, from a multi-disciplinary perspective.

After much discussion and many debates over the course of three days, some interesting things happened. A concensus emerged that the main area of focus of research in this field has been on the etiology or causation of homosexuality and transgenderism, and on medical and health matters. Certainly all of us in this room are familiar with these trends. The conference attendees decided that other topics, different from these previous areas of focus, should be given more encouragement.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with research on any of these topics which have heretofore been the focus. But it is to say that other topics need more encouragement of research in the future.

What emerged as a strong theme of this Placek conference was the need for academics to take a more direct role in activism benefiting sexual minorities. Academics and other researchers are needed to assist activist organizations, which do not have much research base on which to make their strategic decisions. In sharp contrast to the Right Wing, which heavily funds several Think Tank research centers (like the Heritage Foundation), we do not even have one single operating Think Tank to do research and suggest long-range strategies for the future benefit of sexual minorities. At the University of Southern California, right now, we are in the process of building ONE Institute into such a Think Tank. In my role as director of the ONE Institute Center for Advanced Studies, I want to say that I attach great emphasis for including transgender issues in this Think Tank.

A Think Tank needs to work closely with activist organizations, which are usually so busy fighting the fires on the front lines, that they often have little opportunity to step back from the fray, in order to ask if the most effective strategy might be to find out what is starting the fires in the first place, rather than just reacting on the front lines after the fires are already raging.

It has been this reactive quality that has been the greatest weakness of sexual minorities. We have basically just reacted when the other side attacks us. We have not been nearly as proactive as we should have been, and when we have tried to be proactive

we have often fallen on our face. Let me suggest that our biggest single weakness is the lack of long range strategies, and a plan of how we might carry out such strategies. This long-range thinking is precisely what the Radical Right has done so skillfully, building on their Think Tank research studies back in the 1970s, which set the stage for their dramatic impact on the nation in the 1980s and 1990s.

At the Placek conference a consensus was reached that we academics, who are also members of a politically beseiged minority, can no longer afford to spend our time and energies engaging in academic hairsplitting speculation and in simply debating fine points of jargon with each other. It is time for us to apply our considerable research, analytical and writing skills to the work at hand. What I am explicitly calling for today, is an appeal to researchers to shift attention from simply individual gender nonconformist behavior, toward a more inclusive understanding of this behavior in a wider social context.

Public policy implications have to be a prime consideration for where we put our resources. This is not, however, to suggest that we should all become political scientists. Far from it. On the contrary, given the conservative trends of national politics in the 1990s, perhaps our biggest public policy impact can be made outside of political parties. After much discussion, the Placek Conference came up with a list of priorities where research should be most focused. What is interesting is that a clear consensus emerged that the single most important research topics which need to be addressed focus on changing heterosexist prejudice and discriminatory behavior.

That is, how can we best change attitudes, on a societal or individual level, toward a more positive acceptance of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and/or transgender persons?

This might include research in areas like case controlled studies, demonstrating which strategies and techniques are most effective in neutralizing perpetrators of hate crimes and other homophobic and transphobic activities. Existing research has amptly demonstrated that the single most effective way to change heterosexist attitudes is through one-to-one personal contacts on an ongoing basis, of an individual with whom one shares some kind of association. Thus, we need research to suggest the best ways to encourage more lesbigay and transgender persons to come out to their relatives, friends, and co-workers, and to engage in repeated one-to-one dialogue about heterosexism with the people they are closest to.

This repeated one-to-one dialogue is more efective than all the parades, protest marches, political lobbying, workshops and educational lectures put together. I truly feel that we cannot defeat the Radical Right Fundamentalists unless we take our pro-diversity viewpoint into the living rooms of our parents and friends, and into the offices of our jobs, where we can overcome stigmatizing generalities and let people interact with us as individuals.

I teach a class at USC called "Overcoming Prejudice", and in the process of preparing this class I learned a lot that I never knew before. One thing I learned is the crucial role of person-to-person dialogue that is ongoing, between people who have a personal connnection, or from someone whom the listener respects.

That is, accomplished teachers are effective not just because of their teaching skills, but because the students want to become like them. What this implies is that, especially for those of us who want to become teachers, we should strive to become good role models for youth -- not only for sexual minority youth, but also for gender-conforming students who may admire us for our knowledge, our compassion, our professionalism, and our approach to life.

Research in attitude change also shows that attitudes do not tend to change quickly, but rather only incrementally. Thus, it is very unusual for a raging transphobe to become a transgender-rights activist. A more realistic strategy is first, simply to get the prejudiced person to shut up. This may be accomplished by several strategies. For example, it might be possible to create enough questioning in that person's mind, that they will be unsure of their previously-held convictions, and they will stop verbalizing their opinions. Another approach is to apply punitive techniques (for example, if an employer lets employees know that if they verbalize transphobic hate speech in the workplace, they will lose salary, be demoted or fired).

Once transphobic hate speech is curtailed, this serves to create a more neutral climate where prejudices are not repeatedly reinforced by people listening to their peers' prejudices. Research shows that a major factor in heterosexist prejudice is a desire for peer group conformity. If one's peers, whom one admires and wants to be like, express such prejudices, then many people will conform to this social norm in order to be accepted by the group.

However, a desire for peer group conformity is only one of several motivators for heterosexism. It is important to know which specific motivator is at work for a person, before trying to challenge that person's hatreds. For example, a person's transphobia may simply reflect their own insecurity about their secret same-sex erotic feelings, fears of being "abnormal," and especially for males, of not being a "real man." In this case, they might lessen their sexual insecurity by assurances that same-sex feelings are periodically experienced by large numbers of persons, and this does not automatically make them into "a homosexual." They might be led to question their gender conformist assumptions, by challenging their view of what "a real man" truly is. I have found it effective to tell people about the social acceptance of transgender people in various non-Western cultures. This removes our contemporary Western culture as the normative behavior, in favor of a more inclusive worldwide perspective.

On the other hand, a person might be transphobic because they have absorbed prejudices from their church. A different tactic has to be taken with such a person, in order to get them to question some of their basic values. One way to tackle such a case is to create "cognitive dissonance," that is to show a conflict between the specific attitude and their basic values. Again, it is necessary to be specific, in understanding what the person's basic values are. For example, if the person feels that it is important for world peace that people learn to get along no matter what their cultural background, it is possible to create cognitive dissonance in pointing out that different cultures have different atttitudes toward gender and sexuality, and

if we truly want world peace we have to grow up and accept the reality that people differ, and each person is deserving of human respect.

On the other hand, maybe a particular person does not care about world peace, so the argument has to be directed toward their value system. For example, if the person considers themself a follower of Jesus' teachings, it is possible to create cognitive dissonance by pointing out that Jesus' teachings in the Bible never mention any condemnation of homosexuality or transgenderism. On the contrary, Jesus taught his followers to "love one another" without discrimination.

Such an approach would have little impact on someone who places little importance on Jesus. A person whose basic interests are sports, might be more impacted by having an admired sports celebrity speak out publically against transphobia. This promotes a conflict between the person's admiration of the sports celebrity, and their prejudicial attitude. Since most people strive for consistency in their thought, they will hopefully respond by dropping their prejudice. But if the prejudice itself is an important part of their core values, then they might gain consistency by rejecting the celebrity.

A person who has firm heterosexist attitudes may not change those attitudes very much. The most that may be hoped for, in many cases, is that such persons will keep their prejudices to themselves. This may require several experiences of public embarassment. For example, on a recent plane trip back home to Los Angeles I was sitting in the airplane next to a middle-aged white man.

We had engaged in a little polite banter, and he felt comfortable with me. Later, when he saw a tall, rather obvious male person dressed in women's clothing getting on the plane, he turned to me and remarked under his breath, "It's people like that, that are dragging LA downward." He assumed that I would share his attitude. I looked him right in the eye and said, with sudden coldness, "If you don't like LA's diverse population, perhaps you should move out. We need to get rid of the bigots." His face turned bright red in embarassment, and I continued staring at him with obvious hostility. Now, I realize that my hostility would not likely lead him to get rid of his prejudice, but my purpose was to cause him enough embarassment, so that hopefully in the future he would not make the assumption that any gender-conforming person he meets is going to share his prejudice.

By doing this, public expression of prejudice can be reduced, and that reduction can -- over time -- slowly help to change the verbal culture. Let me repeat, to survive, prejudice has to be continually reinforced. By cutting back on this verbal reinforcement, prejudices among people can gradually be changed.

After a person has reached the stage where they have been intiminated into silence on verbalizing their prejudices, they can then gradually be moved into a neutral attitude. Again, cognitive dissonance can be an effective technique in getting people to question their assumptions.

Once a person is in a neutral mode, to the point that they are "tolerant" of sexual minorities, then they can be encouraged to gain a more positive acceptance & appreciation of people who are different. Again, the most effective way for this change to come about is through a one-to-one personal dialogue. If they positively experience a person in their life, or better yet, three or more persons who are identified as transgender, bisexual, lesbian, or gay, then it becomes progressively more difficult for them to rely on stereotypes as they interact with unique individuals. This shows the importance for openly GLBT people to interact on a positive level with our friends, relatives, and co-workers.

Once a person has reached a level of positive acceptance, then that person needs to be inspired to take action to help reduce prejudice. By engaging in dialogue with their own friends, family and co-workers, they can radiate this anti-prejudicial influence further through society. Much of the research on attitude change is being explored by communications researchers like Dr. Gust Yep, who wrote a chapter in our book.

What is important in all of this research is the extreme importance of tailoring the anti-prejudical personal appeal to the specific audience being targeted. An African-American homophobe, for example, may be much more influenced by a GLBT person who is black, with whom they feel a shared bond of ethnicity. This applies to occupational groups as well. One of my graduate students at USC, Chuck Stewart, completed an outstanding dissertation on effective strategies in reducing heterosexism among police recruits. He found that many police academy anti-homophobia training programs simply bring in a panel of gay activists to talk about their personal life. Dr. Stewart's survey tests of classes of police recruits actually showed that, sometimes, these panels actually increased homophobia. They certainly were not very effective in reducing heterosexism. On the contrary, Dr. Stewart's research found, a more effective approach was to set up a panel which consisted of police who were openly lesbian and gay, along with heterosexual police who had a gay or lesbian family member. The recruits could better relate to another person they perceived as within their social group, and they were more likely to take a tolerant or accepting viewpoint from such a strategy. In Los Angeles, a decorated and respected male captain in the Los Angeles Fire Department decided to become transgendered, and through one-to-one repeated dialogue got the support of the crucial Fire Department brass and of the closest co-workers before making the change. In her new role dressing as women firefighters dress, she retained her role as captain and became an effective change agent both for transgender and also feminist issues in the Fire Department.

Many anti-heterosexism workshops are being conducted in numerous settings. Unfortunately, little research has been done to gauge the effectiveness of such workshops. Some of them actually worsen prejudices. And even among those which do indicate positive results, surveys done three or six months later often indicate little long-range impact. A well-designed workshop or seminar can be very effective, but only if it is followed up by repeated dialogue and discussion. One-time events seldom produce long-term results. We need much more evaluation of anti-heterosexism efforts, instead of proceeding under the assumption that any action is equally effective.

MEDIA

Besides personal interaction and one-to-one dialogue, research shows that the second most influential means of changing prejudice is through the mass media. As an academic, I was distressed to learn that pop novels have more impact on public opinion than academic books of the sort I write. I was distressed to learn that young people are more likely to change their attitudes based on something that a TV or movie celebrity says, than what I as a teacher might say.

So, rather than me bemoaning this fact, if we want to reduce prejudice we must accept that reality and build positively from that. Therefore, we need more research showing how the mass media and celebrities being quoted in the mass media can be convinced to portray a more positive image of sexual minorities. We need to know which kind of media ads and public service announcements are most effective in creating pro-gay public opinion (especially in communities under Radical Right attack).

Let's look at just one example of a hugely successful project that has arisen in Los Angeles. The LA chapter of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) decided a number of years ago to focus on changing the heterosexist images put forth by major Hollywood film studios and television production companies. For understanding this process of change, let me refer you to the work of Peter Nardi, the former co-chair of GLAAD-LA, who wrote a chapter in our book Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia: Strategies That Work, about how GLAAD managed to make a significant impact on these companies.

INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

We also need research in how to change institutions. How can attitudes be changed, especially in institutions where heterosexism has been so strongly inculcated, such as schools, churches, police and the military? What can we learn from the very effective techniques used by the Radical Right, to whip up public sentiment against us? How can we turn those techniques to our advantage? Conversely, what can we learn from the example of social change movements which have been rather spectacularly successful in changing public opinion. For example, both Jewish-Americans and Japanese-Americans have dramatically reduced prejudice against their ethnic groups, within the last half century. We need to examine more deeply the women's movement of the 19th and 20th centuries, to understand both their successes and their mistakes, in enacting public policy changes on both political and social levels.

WORKPLACE AND ECONOMIC ISSUES:

Another area of focus to emerge in the Placek discussions is the need to focus in particular on changing heterosexism in the workplace. Transgender people, like most other people, spend a great proportion of their time at their jobs. It is in this locale where many people can have a significant impact, in reducing heterosexism among the people who work with them. How can we expect people to come out, if they are fearful of losing their jobs? Three chapters in our book focus specifically on economic issues and the workplace, written by economists and the longtime activist Brian McNaught.

A start has been made, but we need much more research figuring out how discrimination in the workplace might best be reduced? How can employers be persuaded to end discrimination? How can our community set up networks for those who lose their jobs due to heterosexism to be able to locate other jobs. We need much more networking helping people find jobs where they can work comfortably and be themselves.

A good model might be to study a group called "Hollywood Supports," which exemplifies both the strategies I've mentioned, of person-to-person dialogue and a focus on the mass media. Led by Richard Jennings, who first emerged as an effective media activist in GLAAD-LA, Hollywood Supports has accomplished amazing progress in improving the situation for sexual minorities working in the Hollywood film industry. As a result of Jennings' and others' quiet, behind the scenes one-to-one ongoing dialogue with movie studio chiefs and personnel officers, the workplace situation has improved dramatically for our people in the movie industry. Not only is this important because of the impact for those employed within those corportations, but also because of the massive impact of movies in shaping general social attitudes.

Research on attitude change shows that the majority of people form their attitudes toward other groups based on what they perceive to be the social norm. Most people (sad to say) are conformists, and twentieth century Americans get their image of what social norms are, to a very large extent, from the mass media.

By influencing the media to present a more pro-diversity viewpoint, then the perception of what the social norm is will become more accepting, and over time that will gradually change individuals' attitudes.

What this research suggests is that, to have the maximum impact, we need to be targeting all mass media businesses as places to encourage lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons to take jobs, and to come out to their co-workers. This should especially focus on radio stations, where the Radical Right has such a stranglehold on Talk Radio, but also in TV networks and stations, major daily newspapers, popular magazine companies and mass-market paperback book publishers. We need a "Hollywood Supports" campaign for each of the major media corporations. The big employers are important, not only because they reach more employees, but also because smaller businesses in the same field usually follow the trends begun in the bigger businessses.

By having open employees in those fields who will stand up to prejudice and engage in one-to-one dialogue with their co-workers and supervisors, that will do more than anything else to quiet the heterosexist rhetoric and present more positive depictions of transgender, bisexual, lesbian and gay people in these media.

Thus, a focus on the workplace, especially in media-related businesses, is of prime importance. But the larger question is not just jobs alone. We also need more studies of the overall economic position of our people. How can economic development be further encouraged throughout the lesbian/gay /bisexual/ transgender community?

The extent to which our community is thought of as economically responsible, in pulling our own weight, and in paying our fair share to help others, will be reflected in increased social prestige. I am not saying we need more rich individuals. What will be much more effective is to encourage economic awareness within our community of the need to bring as many people as possible into levels of economic stability. Our community centers and business/professional groups can take the leadership on promoting entrepreneurial, skills training, and financial investment programs. This especially applies to transgender persons, disabled people, lesbians, & ethnic groups that have been economically marginalized.

STUDIES OF DIVERSITY:

The Placek Conference was also in agreement that we need much more research on gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender people among different American ethnic groups, and in other cultures around the world. What are the best ways to improve the socio-economic status of sexual minority people of color, to reduce heterosexism within various ethnic communities, and to strengthen alliances between racial/ethnic minorities and sexual minorities?

A particular value of cross-cultural studies is to focus on cultures (either in the past, or the present) that do NOT discriminate against sexual and gender diversity. What are the characteristics of such societies, and how do they incorporate same-sex eroticism into their worldviews without feeling threatened by this reality? What can we learn from the experience of diverse cultures, from a multiethnic and transnational perspective, about how best to reduce heterosexism?

STUDIES OF SAME-SEX FAMILY ISSUES:

Besides multiethnic and cross-cultural perspectives, the Placek Conference also stressed the need for research on family issues for sexual minorities. How can family recognition best be accomplished, both legally and in social legitimacy? This includes domestic partner rights, legalized same-sex marriage, parents' child custody rights, foster care and adoption opportunities. Again, in these areas, cross-cultural evidence can be of much value, in looking at cultures which do recognize and value same-sex marriages and families.

[WLW research on same-sex marriages in non-Western cultures, being used in Hawaii same-sex marriage case before the Hawaii Supreme Court].

These four areas, focusing on research related to changing heterosexism, changing the workplace, focusing on understudied people of color ethnic groups in the United States and in other cultures, and on recognition of sexual minority families, was the clear consensus of the Placek Conference. Inspired by this, I was instrumental in establishing a Center for Scholars in Residence at USC, in collaboration with ONE Institute, where these areas were the main area of focus. During the three years of the Center's existence, 1994-1997, USC provided an apartment complex for Ph.D. candidates to have a place to live while working on their dissertations, along with post-doctoral scholars, and senior scholars on sabbatical from their employment.

We had a range of ages, nationalities, disciplines, and genders, all mixing together for intellectual interchange and cross-disciplinary fertilization.

Much of the work in supporting the researchers at this Center was the result of the donation of $50,000 by Dr. Hal Call of San Francisco. Dr. Call has been active in the gay movement going back to the 1950s, as a Mattachine activist. He has had much impact on changing heterosexism in San Francisco over the years. Hal Call is far from being a rich man, but he decided to do something that most people with far more wealth in our community have not done. He provides a role model for many others, not only for his years of dedicated activism, but also for his financial support for important work being done for the future.

During the three years of its existence, the Center for Scholars in Residence was extremely successful in attracting visiting scholars from several nations, including Brazil, Belguim, and two scholars from Canada focusing on transgender issues, Professor Micki from York University and Professor Holly Devor from Victoria University. We also had Professor Igor Kon from the Russian Academy of Sciences, who is writing a book in Russian that attacks heterosexism in his country, as well as medical anthropologist Wan Yan Hai from China, who is working to remove homosexuality and transgenderism being listed as a mental disorder by the Chinese Psychiatric Association. At ONE Institute we are currently looking for other donors to provide financial support for the revival of this very successful research Center. If any of you know of any potential donors for such a Think Tank, please talk with me afterwards.

CROSS CULTURAL RESEARCH

let me end by giving a focus on the potential for research, giving my own anthropological research as an example, in which I have done ethnographic fieldwork living in cultures which have respected roles for homosexually-inclined and androgynous people. My research suggests that a culture will not be truly accepting unless it figures out some way for such sexual or gender nonconformists to make special contributions to the society that are different from what the average person does. This might be as a religious leader, a healer, a teacher, or some special prestigious position that people in the society look up to.

[see The Spirit and the Flesh ]

In my research cross-culturally, I have found that those societies that have institutionalized homosexual and transgender roles, ironically do not emphasize the sex part. Everyone knows their preferences, but it is just not made a big issue. What this shows is that, in this society, it is really the right wing homophobes who have made homosexuality and transgenderism a public issue in recent American history. If they had not enacted so much discrimination against homosexuals and transgendered persons, it is unlikely that a politicized sexual minority would ever have arisen. In a non-homophobic society, there is no reason for sexuality to become political. It's just part of life.

In the case of Native American cultures, instead of what people do sexually, the emphasis is placed on gender-role difference of the Two-Spirit person. They do not take the approach of the American gay rights movement, which has tried to gain social acceptance by saying "we're the same as you except for what we do in bed." Instead, the Two-Spirits are given social prestige precisely BECAUSE of their difference from the average person. The differences are emphasized, and thus are seen as providing society something positive, some benefits that it would not gain if everyone were the same.

The implication here is that, rather than trying so hard to blend in, we should be emphasizing our uniqueness. I think the dominant message propounded by the Radical Right in the 1980s was that everyone should be the same. That desire for sameness, for "being normal," has a strong attraction for people living in a diverse society that is going through great changes. The gay rights and transgender movements have not given society a positive message to counter that desire. All we have said is, "Please let us have our rights." Beg, beg, beg. The question is, Why should they? What's in it for them?

Let me suggest that our message in response to the Radical Right must be: "Thank goodness we're NOT all the same, because if we were, then society would lose out on the creativity and aliveness that different perspectives help to bring about." If we want our nation to advance in the new global competitiveness of the coming 21st century, we had better do everything we can to promote independent thinking and creativity.

Mindless conformity is, economically as well as emotionally and intellectually, a dead-end road.

This is the message that a Native American perspective can give us today. This is what we can learn, if we will only listen to their voices. Then we can begin to understand what they mean, when Native people talk about Two-Spirit persons. Their view is that an androgynous person has been blessed by being bestowed BOTH the spirit of a man and the spirit of a woman. This is not something "wrong" or "dysphoric" or something "less than a regular man or a regular woman." Instead, this androgynous gender is seen by Native Americans as something "more," some blessing from the spirit world that the average person does not have. It is a gift, being "spiritually different." When I was doing my research, I kept hearing Indian people telling me this, and it was only after a long while that I began to understand that when they say a person is "different in spirit," the closest term that we can translate this to in English, is to say that such a person's difference is in their "basic character." But because Indians put it in spiritual terms, it allows for acceptance in a way that calls for mere social tolerance cannot do.

In other words, whether we are talking about lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender or intersex people, we are all here, we are all queer, and we are all unique. A native person from Arizona explained it this way, and I will quote here from my book

The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture. He said:

"Among my people, gay is a special status.... The more unique someone is, the more valuable they are, the more unique their vision, the more unique their gift, their perspective, everything they can offer is something that other people cannot offer.... The thing that's different about where I come from, is that all human beings are respected because all human beings have potential, all human beings have value."

To tie together this talk, starting with the value of those early homophile activists in ONE Institute, I think the statement that I find most appropriate to end this talk is quoted from a Mohave Two-Spirit person who was interviewed by a writer for ONE magazine back in 1964. During that oppressive time, when many non-Native transgendered persons were wallowing in self-hatred and shame, this confident Native person could draw on his own tribal tradition of acceptance of sexual diversity, to say this about himself. He said:

"I don't think I would like to change. I guess I'm just on my own personal little warpath -- not against whites, but against heterosexuals who think that everyone should be like them. I may not always be happy, but I am always me. And they can like it or lump it. Life's too short to spend your time being something you don't want to be. Like the old saying, 'To thine own self be true.' Well, I'm true to my self and my own nature. I think that's all anyone has a right to ask of me."