What the supreme court case can tell us about naming our social location.
In 2020, I learned about the word social location so this is new to me and maybe it is to you. I distinctly remember endlessly googling about social location and trying to understand why naming my identities when I am introducing myself (particularly in facilitation spaces) is important.
Over the years, I’ve experimented with naming my social location in many different ways but it was not until recently that I realized why an analysis of identity brings clarity of how I may appear in space. I also say experimented, not to take light of the topic, but to share that it will not feel right or genuine the first time around because it will feel like rote learning and memorization.
But that’s part of learning a new language and talking about our identities is indeed a new language because sometime we just get so caught up in wanting to appear in unity when in reality, our diverse experiences could not be any more different.
Even though I’ve written about this before here, this article feels entirely different in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Creative 303 v. Elenis.
In this article, I replaced points of oppressions with “receiving end of oppression” and I replaced points of privilege with “giving end of oppression”
For folks on the receiving end of discrimination, this language is something that is felt and experience (often on the daily) so sometimes it can feel complex to intellectually name what actually makes those identities feel oppressed and disembodied on a daily basis.
For folks who are on the giving end of discrimination, this language feels complex as well but for a different reason. If you’re anything like me, as a cis-gender person, it can feel discouraging because it brings up friction as being a person who is on the giving end of discrimination consciously and/or unconsciously.
For many of us, our identities are a mixture of being on the giving end and receiving end of discrimination. And this is important because we can then know how culture assists us in discriminating or perpetuates us receiving discrimination.
So when Lorie Smith’s attorney in Creative 303 v. Elenis said “this case will also protect LGBTQ designers and businesses” - that is statement is entirely false. And that is because Lorie Smith is a cis-gender, white and heterosexual and the judicial system, a product of dominant culture, is indeed assisting her with discrimination because of the racist cis-tem that exists. So if the Supreme Court does side with Lorie Smith, it does further the racist and cis agendas of dominant culture which in turn discriminates people who are already at the receiving end of this.
So, no Lorie Smith - you do not get to claim in your arguments that you are also protecting LGBTQ businesses and their co-conspirators that you also protecting their rights.
You are not.
In fact, this action is actively organizing to take away the rights of the LGBTQ community.
Why does this matter for us, small business? It matters because this impacts small businesses who are and/or want to continue to be co-conspirators to the LGBTQ community. We need to continuously name our identities, especially where we can tend to perpetuate discrimination.
Its’ time for us cis-gender folks to look around in our business, look at the identities attending your classes, look at what identities make up the majority of your team, look at the area you are operating our business in.
How has your identity further the discrimination? How do you plan to pledge to fight anti-trans legislation?
