Introduction
An article posted by Politico author Dan Diamond summarizes how the Trump administration has “dismantled” LGBT-friendly policies related to health care and is working on reversing some of the few protections that this group has under the law.
Article Summary
Healthcare
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the United States is rapidly destructing the Obama administration’s efforts to make healthcare accessible and safe for all—including those in the queer communities (Diamond, et al., 2018). In early 2017, Donald Trump appointed several new leaders who have revised LGBTQIA initiatives by removing regulations that protect the queer community’s rights and removing queer-related language from healthcare-related documents. In addition, the LGBT page on the White House website was deleted less than two hours after Trump was inaugurated (Diamond et al., 2018; The White House, 2018). Moreover, data collection for LGBTQIA health and discrimination could eventually halt, as the Health and Human Services agency revises documents. With LGBTQIA healthcare being discounted, the new religious liberty division protects healthcare workers who disagree with treating LGBTQIA individuals, allowing nurses, doctors, and healthcare personnel to refuse to treat queer patients (Diamond, et al., 2018).
Although queer advocacy groups have reached out to the Trump administration, there has been little response, and the Department of Health and Human Services ignored questions about why LGBTQIA health information was removed and replaced by “language favorable to Christian conservatives” in the mandatory four-year strategic plan (Diamond, et al., 2018). While HHS and public affairs had LGBTQIA leaders, this has changed since 2016, with Charmaine Yoest being tapped for public affairs chief, which shifted views on many issues. Yoest is known for being anti-abortion, supporting conversion therapy, being against same-sex adoptions, saying that transgender people have mental disorders, and fighting against marriage equality (Diamond et al., 2018).
New Government Leadership
Next, Diamond and colleagues (2018) elaborated on new appointees that Donald Trump has sworn into office, including Alex Azar, the new secretary of the Health and Human Services department, and Roger Severino, who claimed that same-sex marriage was the start of the “left’s LGBT agenda” (Diamond, et al., 2018). The article elaborates on Severino’s attempt to reach out to LGBT advocacy groups, but after interviewing agency spokespeople, many LGBT advocates have been ignored.
After addressing the new appointees, Diamond et al. (2018) explored Barack Obama’s presidency and his advocacy for the LGBTQIA community, including hospital visitation rights, banning discrimination against sexual orientation and transgender people in healthcare settings. They then swiftly compare Obama’s presidency to the Trump administration, who has been rescinding LGBTQIA friendly laws that ban discrimination, as well as a motion to remove LGBT health questions on surveys that help further research on sexual minority health disparities. Advocacy organizations are attempting to follow-up with Severino to no avail. Following, several other issues were brought up, including the transgender bathroom issue in schools, and discrimination against queer people in the workplace. Other LGBTQIA issues were explored, however, for the purpose of this paper, they have been omitted.
Cultural Considerations
There are several factors to be considered when reading this article. As Audre Lorde said, “there is no hierarchy of oppression” (2009). While preceding article focuses on sexual orientation and gender, one cannot look at these groups without considering other groups, such as race, ability, ethnicity, and color. Moreover, queer theory, and many queer narratives have centered around the dominant, rich, white, heterosexual male, leading to the queer of color critique, and other critiques of queer theory as many overlook the intersection of queer people of color (Duran, 2018). Within the LGBTQIA community, Intersectionality is important to note; however, gender and sexual orientation will be at the forefront of this review in their relation to queer theory and our current political system’s policies on healthcare.
Literature Review
Queer theory’s origin is hard to pinpoint, due to its foundation in several other theories and events such as feminist theory, post-structuralist theory, the AIDS movement, the Stonewall riots, and movements of people of color. While queer theory tends to be tethered to negativity, according to Weigman (2017), it has been a popular topic among marginalized sexual groups. With the current political environment of 2018, queer theory (and queer people) have an important place in destabilizing sexual and gender norms (Edelman, 2007). In this literature review, queer theory is discussed, as well as categorization of gender and sexual orientations, historical implications, and laws and policies surrounding LGBTQIA people.
Queer Theory
The word “queer” has been widely debated among LGBTQIA people and heterosexual people as well. It can be used as an umbrella term for those who do not identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, as well as other sexual minorities, including those who are asexual, practice bondage, discipline/dominance, submission/sadism, masochism (BDSM), or intersex (Carr, Hagai, & Zurbriggen, 2017; Nadal, 2016). Queer has also been used for people who do not identify with a certain sexually marginalized group at a certain period of time, yet recognize that their sexuality is always changing, or fluid (Carr et al., 2017). In addition, the word queer has been used to identify those who are in the BDSM community, as their sexual interactions are deemed nonnormative.
The term “queer theory” was coined by Teresa de Lauretis in 1991 in her book Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities, which explains a key concept in queer theory—that heteronormativity has a huge place in our society as reinforced by marriage (and the laws associated with it), taxes, employment benefits such as insurance, adoption rights, and healthcare (Carr, et al., 2017). Queer theory is based on multiple theories, including third-wave and postmodern feminism, and predominately deals with the binary oppositions of sexuality and gender (Carr et al., 2017; Nadal, 2016; Rodemeyer, 2017). For example, those who are not familiar with queer theory may see men and women as very specific ways of being, whereas the queer theorist would see gender on a spectrum, with female at one end, male on the other, and nonbinary (do not identify as male or female and use “they, them, theirs” pronouns).
Carr and colleagues (2017) explain that the heterosexual matrix of intelligibility is the normative assumptions that combine biological sex, gender, and sexual desire. What constitutes “normal,” according to queer theory, is socially constructed, specifically, the “normal” female-ness, male-ness, and the “normal” sexual orientation (heterosexuality; Jagose, 2010; McGeorge & Carlson, 2011). For example, a person born with male genitalia, will identify as a male, and therefore be attracted to women. These assumptions are what queer theory hopes to dismantle (Carr et al., 2017; Rodemeyer, 2017; Weigman, 2014).
Heteronormativity and Queer Theory. Heteronormative assumptions refer to beliefs that reinforce heterosexuality to be the norm (McGeorge & Carlson, 2011). Heteronormative assumptions have led to only heterosexual relationships to be represented in mainstream media, leading to people, including therapists, to assume heterosexuality. Heterosexual assumptions and societal norms surrounding sexuality have led to the larger problem of institutional heterosexism and heterosexual privilege. Our societies policies surrounding healthcare, marriage, adoption, and education promote a heterosexual lifestyle, exclude the LGBTQIA community, and grant certain benefits to heterosexual couples. Overall, this perpetuates heteronormativity and allows it to continue to be the dominant group (McGeorge & Carlson, 2011). Consequently, LGBTQIA individuals subconsciously internalize these negative beliefs, leading to a negative impact on their mental and physical health. For these reasons, LGBTQIA individuals need equal access to physical healthcare as well as mental health care.
With the explosion of knowledge and ideas revolving around queerness, members of the Generation Y and Generation Z groups have been pushing for teachers and professors to integrate content that “disrupts homophobia and transphobia” (Mayo, 2016). In addition, certain political projects such as Queer Nation have been fighting social exclusion based on race, sexuality, gender, and class (Carr et al., 2017). Many of the individuals who are fighting for LGBTQIA rights are a part of the community themselves.
Historical Implications
There are several antecedents leading up to the current state of the LGBTQIA movement in the United States, including the Stonewall riots, AIDS activism, and the emergence of queer theory which has led many LBGTQIA individuals and groups to pursue social action (Poindexter, 1997).
Stonewall riots. At a small bar in Brooklyn in 1969, the New York City police department stormed in as a part of the crackdown on gay bars. This was normal in NYC at the time, however, this particular raid did not go as planned. The patrons at the Stonewall Inn rioted for three nights, media had spread the word of the disruption, and, as Poindexter (1997) said, “the modern gay rights movement in the United States was born” (p. 607). The Stonewall riots were a unique look into how the LGBTQIA community, and other marginalized groups organize against oppression.
During times of societal crises, such as the Stonewall riots, community behavior becomes less focused on traditional communication and rational ways of dealing with problems, and shifts towards irrational, spontaneous methods of group behavior such as revolutions, riots, large-scale panic, and the like (Poindexter, 1997). Despite the unconventional ways of behavior, these events typically bring about social change. The Stonewall riots were a breaking point for gay and lesbian individuals, which resulted in mass media coverage of a cohesive LGBT+ group who were fighting oppression, instead of a small, isolated event.
...(download the rest of the essay above)