what does baltimore have to do with TBLG rights?

The recent events in Baltimore contrast sharply with Bruce Jenner's coming out interview and the Supreme Court hearing arguments on same-sex marriage. That juxtaposition has led some people to call out the LGBT mainstream (again) for not being inclusive and not addressing the issues faced by black Americans and other racial minorities, regardless of their TBLG status. 

I noticed many people took exception to this in the comments or when it (or a similar sentiment) was shared. "How dare you!" or "How short-sighted!" were common responses. Some claimed that homophobia is more common in the black community , a myth that has been addressed repeatledly over the years. Others compared the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, as though being denied a marriage license in Alabama is analogous to the Selma March (sorry SFGate, the two movements are not that equatable). Notably, the Stonewall riots were led by queer and trans women of color - though the history of Stonewall (like most history) was whitewashed, but let's move on...

I'm pretty sure the deaths of trans women of color (TWOC) are being covered by LGBT mainstream groups (and that they will comment on Baltimore soon enough, just like they did with Ferguson). The LGBT mainstream also points out that more than half the deaths [in the US] of TWOC are the result of domestic violence. When people discuss the murders of trans women they often suggest they were murdered *because* they were trans when that's not usually the case. Which isn't to say trans status doesn't play a part, because it often does, but once you start to examine how those deaths could have been prevented (collectively or individually) you realize.... 

Trans women [of color] are routinely denied access to shelters, jobs, education, and other things that would allow them to live a relatively 'normal' life instead of being left with the [state] criminalized world of drugs and survival sex work due to a lack of other opportunities. As a result of the criminalization of socioeconomic disadvantage, trans women [of color] often encounter a law enforcement system that doesn't care about them, so they stop calling the police altogether to avoid additional harassment and humiliation. And this is on top of the problems caused by a lack of access to medical care, the difficulty of updating legal documents with correct gender/names, geography, and transportation (or lack thereof) - all of which play a part in worsening outcomes.

That right there is the compounding effect of systematic discrimination. That shit is fucked up, and that's the over-simplified version. Of course gay marriage is conservative when compared to that, because while being able to marry the person you love and have that marriage recognized by the state is important, it's not life or death - so why are we focused on that? 

Maybe some role play will help:

In Scenario A, you're a 16 year old black trans girl. Your parents kick you out because you're trans, your school doesn't protect you from bullying so you drop out, and you can't get a decent job. When you finally find a job [that doesn't challenge or reward you] - unreliable public transportation (if it exists) and time consuming commutes chip away at your job performance until you're let go. Then you can't pay your rent and you start doing survival sex work. You're assaulted. You use to escape and eventually end up in jail. The subsequent criminal record makes it even more difficult to break the cycle. 

Incidentally, this is why some younger trans people loath older ones (like Jenner) because they had the privilege and resources to avoid most (if not all) the above. The response is that older transitioners lose friends/partners/children, jobs/careers, the ability to 'pass' or 'blend' due to decades of the wrong hormones, the psychological trauma associated with decades of repression, and so on. Many people who experience part (or all) of Scenario A think those costs pale in comparison, so they're dismissive of the rebuttals. (Hold that thought).

In Scenario B, you're a gay pair of white men who can't get married. As a result, you pay more in taxes, your partner can't share your health care plan, and your relationship creates some additional legal burdens around estate planning.

Doesn't Scenario B look a lot more manageable than Scenario A? Of course! That's because people in Scenario B have already gone through Scenario A and survived, so why would someone dismiss that struggle? Because that couple has socioeconomic privilege, duh! The economic benefits of same-sex marriage (taxes, healthcare, etc.) presuppose the existence of income and wealth - things people currently experiencing Scenario A struggle to obtain - so of course Scenario B pales in comparison.

I think most TBLG organizations understand how intersectionality works. While they may not appear (or be) as inclusive as they could be, they recognize Scenario A is very similar to the realities faced by minorities beyond the TBLG. That they choose to discuss societal issues through the lens of LGBT rather than the lens of race or class doesn't seem that problematic.

What appears much more problematic is that the average person (and the average LGBT person) doesn't seem to fully appreciate how intersectionality works. Many of them have personally experienced parts of Scenario A - they've lost family, jobs, got beat up - and it got better. If they could overcome why can't everyone else? (See: fundamental attribution error)

Naturally activists are unsurprised when the 'more privileged' express their indignation at seemingly being called racist and indifferent to Baltimore. Yet I think some activists miss the valuable distinction between education and vilification. Ending racism/white supremacy does nothing to end other issues like sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, classism, fundamentalism, etc. How do you honestly tell someone which one of those is the 'worst issue?' Is it some formula like "number of people oppressed (n) multiplied by the severity of oppression (x) raised to the number of years of oppression (t) divided by the quantity of total possible privilege (P) within a given society minus the actual privilege (p) enjoyed by the sub-group?" Then does the identity with the lowest score get everyone's time, money, and attention? Or do you ration resources based on some other formula?

This is why some are critical of identity politics, not because they are against the actual identities themselves but against attempts to "win" the oppression olympics. Intersectionality theory is important to describe different groups and the interplay between different forces/oppressions - but it's not as useful when it comes to political theory. 

There are unsavory political considerations too. Conservative's dollars and votes are just as valuable as progressive's, so picking single issues like same-sex marriage and ending military discrimination appear more expedient than the minefields of political issues that come up when you start discussing socioeconomic intersectionality. Single issues are also easier to communicate and simpler messaging helps with fundraising. This is the somewhat inevitable byproduct of a political system that prioritizes action based on campaign contributions rather than justice, a system that ignores that a large part of the population can't afford influence, either with their wallet or their ballot. It can be difficult to vote assuming you're even allowed to vote and aren't burdened with needing to obtain an ID - this is how the compounding effect of systematic discrimination works.

We can and should discuss how various forces like racism and economic injustice combine with other oppressions. That helps us understand why the citizens of Baltimore are upset and how the trans experience can be difficult. But what we do to address one problem or the other or both goes far beyond "my/these politics are more important than your/those politics."