Gay, Not Queer: Transgender people and respectability politics

by Jace Wilson

First off, what is respectability politics? To answer this question, let’s look at the paper
Understanding Respectability Politics and How It Informs Sociopolitical Change by
Jenny Dorsey and Emily Chen.

When they define respectability politics, they first define a respectability narrative,
which are “representations of marginalized individuals meant to depict them as sharing
similar traits, values, and morals that align with the dominant group’s definition of
‘respectability.’” This means creating a representation of a marginalized group to paint
them as similar to the mainstream group, who are often their oppressors, in an effort to
appeal to their oppressors as respectable.

Respectability politics is then defined as “a school of thought that utilizes respectability

narratives as the basis for enacting social, political, and legal change.” Respectability
politics is often used to rule change in the marginalized group’s favor, such as a
legislator pointing to the similarities between the oppressed and the oppressor to grant
rights like citizenship or equal pay.

So, what’s the issue? If respectability is used in favor of marginalized communities,

what’s wrong with it? And to that I say, there’s always a catch. Here, it can be seen in
the history of respectability, and what truly defines being respectable.

In 1921, the president of Harvard Law School decided to bar Black students from
residence in freshman dormitories. Lawyer Raymond Alexander, who was a student at
Harvard at the time, argued against this in the journal Opportunity by saying that the
Black students at Harvard were similar to their white counterparts because they
“exemplified the most traditional of Harvard’s values… with fathers who were lawyers
and doctors.”

During the reversal of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, Chinese immigrants were
described as democratic, having a strong work ethic, having values in line with
Americans and being Christian or believing in a higher faith.

In these two examples, notice how the basis of the arguments isn’t the fact that the
status of being a marginalized individual shouldn’t interfere with their rights; it also isn’t
that these individuals have strengths of their own, different to the dominant group but
still just as valuable: the basis of these arguments is that they are similar to the
dominant group, and therefore are worthy of respect.

Respectability politics upholds the view that the supposed worthiness of a

marginalized group should be evaluated in the first place; what’s worse is that there is
no objective criteria for what makes a “respectable” individual: the unspoken,
ever-changing rules are set by the dominant group, solidifying the power imbalance
tenfold.
 Gay, Not Queer: Transgender people and respectability politics
by Jace Wilson

There is also the issue of how respectability politics can be weaponized by the
dominant group. If a group or individual isn’t recognized as respectable, and their worth
is put into question by the dominant group, who would stop the marginalized group’s
suffering, their massacre, or their extinction? Respectability is then used as a
justification for harm.

Dorsey and Chen also say that respectability politics drives in-group ostracization: a
hierarchy is formed between those who are deemed more respectable by the dominant
group, and those who are not. Members of these communities often distance
themselves or ostracize those who are deemed less respectable, in order to deflect
stereotypes and be perceived as quote “one of the good ones.” Doing this, instead of
challenging the dominant group’s standards, reinforces the idea that marginalized
individuals must earn the right to be treated fairly. They must perform worthiness for the
dominant group, to have half the opportunities that the dominant group has by default.

Next we’ll look at respectability politics happening in the present. An example lies in
the LGBTQ community: the respectability politics of being transgender.
First, let’s look at a case study: neopronouns.

Neopronouns have been a topic of hot debate outside and inside of the LGBTQ
community. People have taken to sharing and ostracizing neopronouns, particularly on
social media: “..if we normalize these outrageous neopronouns, I don't think I'll be able
to handle meeting another three or more person with unique neopronouns, I don’t think
I'll care about memorizing them if we don’t get along. I can only imagine that inside their
head they are going like “Why can’t everyone understand me? why can’t anyone
respect me? why can’t anyone get along with me? me… me…me…”. This is just
starting to become a narcissistic play,” says one on a forum board. “Nounself pronouns,
semantically, are nearly identical to personal names. That is, one must remember,
specifically, which pronouns a given person prefers, in addition to that person’s name,
and substitute normal pronouns for whatever ridiculous ones the person wants, at which
point it’s just easier to use his or her bloody name. Only that would reveal how awkward
and foolish the whole endeavor is,” Says another.

However, to understand neopronouns, we need to look at their history. And yes,

neopronouns did exist before the boom in 2020!

One of the earliest neopronouns on record was in 1789, when William H. Marshall
observed the use of “ou” as a pronoun. With respect to binary pronouns, “ou will” is
similar to saying “she will”, “he will”, or “they will”. The third person singular feminine
pronoun “heo” (accusative his, heo, genitive hire, possessive determiner hires)
appeared in both Old and Middle English.

The modern understanding of neopronouns often lies in modern examples.

Neopronouns such as ze/zir and xe/xem are more well-known examples. However, the
people on the forum boards weren’t talking about these types of neopronouns: they
 Gay, Not Queer: Transgender people and respectability politics
by Jace Wilson

were talking about noun-self pronouns. Noun-self pronouns are defined as “a type of
neopronoun which involve a noun being used as a personal pronoun.” Some examples
are vamp/vampself, kitten/kittenself, and doll/dollself.
Noun-self pronouns are often used by gender non-conforming, usually neurodivergent,
people who find he, she, and they pronouns to be unsatisfactory when describing their
gender. To one person, it might seem silly, but to the person using noun-self pronouns, it
might be critical to their self-expression.

Now we’ve got an understanding of what neopronouns are, and their function in the
English language and gender non-conforming identities. Let’s take another look at the
forum posts.
The first post claimed that neopronouns are a narcissistic play. This doesn’t make
sense: first, neopronouns have existed for a long time, and no-one is calling
Shakespeare a narcissist for saying “thou” instead of “you.” Second, with the backlash
that these people are facing, why would anyone use neopronouns just for the sake of a
“play”?

The second post points out that noun-self pronouns are identical to personal names,
except… they aren’t. If one understands how to use noun-self pronouns, and
understands why one might use them, why wouldn’t one just have faith in their fellow
human beings, faith that they know their own identity? Is this an issue of a lack of faith,
or maybe something else?

Chen and Dorsey have some more interesting things to say about respectability
politics, specifically about respectability politics in the LGBTQ community.

They say that “ostracization within the queer community still exists against those who
do not follow a typical heteronormative relationship… or those who are judged as too
promiscuous… LGBTQ respectability strategies have benefitted ‘those whose sexual
lives have fit comfortably within widely accepted canons of propriety, privacy,
domesticity, and coupledom.’”

This ideological positioning combined with the fact that respectability is a constantly
moving target makes for a consistent incentive for ostracization of the next “weird”
group within the LGBTQ community. Now it’s time for the spicy stuff: when they’ve
finished driving neopronoun users into the ground, who will they come for next?
Transgender people as a whole? They’re already going at that. Cisgender gays? That
too. If the queer community is already being attacked by, well, itself, then it becomes an
even easier target for the measures of respectability and discrimination. You must ask
yourself, is it worth going after the “weird” group when your oppressor thinks you and
them are one in the same?