The Tolerance Trap: How God, Genes, and Good Intentions are Sabotaging Gay Equality

Intersections: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Genders and Sexualities

by Suzanna Danuta Walters

From Glee
to gay marriage, from lesbian senators to out gay Marines, we have undoubtedly
experienced a seismic shift in attitudes about gays in American politics and
culture. Our reigning national story is
that a new era of rainbow acceptance is at hand. But dig a bit deeper, and this
seemingly brave new gay world is disappointing. For all of the undeniable changes,
the plea for tolerance has sabotaged the full integration of gays into American
life. Same-sex marriage is unrecognized and unpopular in the vast majority of
states, hate crimes proliferate, and even in the much vaunted “gay friendly”
world of Hollywood and celebrity culture, precious few stars are openly gay.





In The
Tolerance Trap, Suzanna Walters
takes on received wisdom about gay identities and gay rights, arguing that we
are not “almost there,” but on the
contrary have settled for a watered-down goal of tolerance and acceptance
rather than a robust claim to full civil rights. After all, we tolerate unpleasant medicine
with strong side effects, a long commute, an annoying relative. Drawing on a
vast array of sources and sharing her own personal journey, Walters shows how
the low bar of tolerance demeans rather than ennobles both gays and straights
alike. Her fascinating examination covers the gains in political inclusion and
the persistence of anti-gay laws, the easy-out sexual freedom of queer youth
and the suicides and murders of those in decidedly intolerant environments. She
challenges both “born that way” storylines that root civil rights in biology,
and “god made me that way” arguments that similarly situate sexuality as innate
and impervious to decisions we make to shape it. A sharp and provocative cultural critique, this
book deftly argues that a too-soon declaration of victory short-circuits full
equality and deprives us all of the transformative possibilities of full
integration. Tolerance is not the end
goal, but a dead end. In The Tolerance
Trap, Walters presents a complicated snapshot of a world-shifting moment in
American history—one that is both a wake-up call and a call to arms for anyone
seeking true equality.

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Politics, Queer, LGBT, Psychology, Theory

343 pages, Paperback

First published May 2, 2014

Reviews

[Bel · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are a couple of thought-provoking - though hardly original - concepts buried in this book. These are broadly that (i) the "born this way" narrative can work against gay rights and (ii) that integration through e.g. equal marriage should not be the complete aim of the gay rights movement. (I am not sure that trans rights get a single mention.) This book might be seen to serve a certain purpose, in that it examines these concepts in the context of US culture in 2014. It could also provide an introduction to these concepts for someone who hasn't read about them in detail - like me, for all my queer and feminist reading!

Unfortunately, aside from the parochial US focus (which I was expecting), there is just far too much rambling, far too many allusions to TV shows I have never heard of ( Modern Family) or never seen (Glee) for the book to really make its message felt. The exceptions were the last two chapters, which set out the author's manifesto on the second point clearly (you could probably just read those), and the odd paragraph of clarity:

"Debates over citizenship in turn provoke further debate around the political goals and strategies of the LGBTQ movement. That in turn raises the issue of what is the cause or motivating factor for the subordination of LGBTQ people. Is it some aversion to same-sex desire and sex? Is it the challenge to gender norms that inevitably arises when relationships move outside the "different but complementary" ideology of heterosexual attraction? Is it because the nonprocreative potential of gay life renders gays supposedly unfit for marital/family life? Is it-at core-religious in origin? What fantasies of the "nation" are being "protected" against the incursion of these Others?"

Criticisms aside, as I concentrated and thought through for myself the implications Walters was making about tolerance (not a bad thing to be forced to do), I found myself agreeing with her thesis. Erasure of queer identities as we fight for and gain rights to conform to heterosexual norms is an issue to be grappled with, and not one that only applies to those having identities that do not "fit". As Walters acknowledges, there are plenty of gay people who are happy to get their civil rights and live a heterosexual-modelled life, and good for them. But this misses an opportunity to examine and change current gender norms and a male-dominated family model.

"These challenging questions also enrich the 'mainstream' culture, so it's not just a matter here of reducing homophobia but rather producing a more inclusive, flexible, interesting, happy society in general. [...] Heterosexual tolerance--of gay marriage, gay soldiers, gay workers, gay sitcom characters--does both gays and straights a disservice in not engaging head-on with the challenges offered by sexual and gender differences."

Mere assimilation misses an opportunity for change, but also means that LGBTQ folks are only 'tolerated' - we are still different, outsiders, permitted inside because those on the inside have decided we should be. Regardless of the rights permitted, this is not true equality.

When it comes to her criticisms of the 'born this way' concept, I very much struggled to understand Walters' complaints, and the most clarity came in quotes from other writers. Personally, I find the whole argument ridiculously simplistic, when one considers the incredible complexity of genetic factors (as if there would be a single 'gay gene') and the incredible complexity of the influence of culture on an individual's development (witness enlightened parents trying to eliminate gender stereotypes from their childrens' lives and being completely undermined by external forces). Sexuality might not be determined from birth, who actually knows, but that doesn't mean it is a choice. On the other hand, I can see the point that 'you have to tolerate us because we have no choice in who we are' is far less inspiring a line than 'you have to tolerate us because we are human, not to mention that our ways of being human bring valuable new viewpoints to society'.

So, plenty of food for thought, but a lot of effort is required to distill it. There must be better books out there about these issues, and I plan to track them down.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Does a great job of pointing out that nature vs. nurture argument about homosexuality is very complex. Also does a good job showing how the word "tolerant" can actually be divisive. Unfortunately, she gets bogged down in academic jargon and stretches out the material to make it book-length.

[Amy G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book - passionate and well-argued. Give it to your best friend with bad LGBTQ politics. Sure, some of the chapters were better than others, but it's a great read, and I found myself nodding along throughout.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved her points, although the book was lacking in structure and topic sentences. You had to kind of gather her argument as you read.

[Amanda]

http://fusion.net/story/342665/new-qu...

[Carlos · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reading this book was frustrating. Walter’s main goal is to argue that tolerance is not good enough. While I agree, in part, with that idea, I was left very frustrated by the repeated accusations of lack of progress. This seemed simply preposterous, so much so that even the author is forced to acknowledge every 2 or 3 paragraphs that things are massively better from when she came out in the 1970s. Yet, Walters starts every chapter by arguing how greater visibility in TV, the inevitability of same-sex marriage (the book was published in 2014), the greater acceptance of gays and lesbians in society, etc., are all signs of the shortcomings of the gay rights movement. For example, I was floored by her criticism of the same-sex marriage movement. She bemoans the missed opportunity of dismantling the institution of marriage itself instead of celebrating the incremental successes towards equal recognition of same-sex couples. Again, after 2 or 3 paragraphs she acknowledges this triumph, but it nonetheless leaves the reader frustrated. Towards the end of the book she becomes more self-reflexive and acknowledges that she might be conflating two different goals, that of gay rights and that of sexual liberation. This felt much more honest and allowed her to acknowledge that the pursuit of both at once might prevent movement on either, i.e., if the gay rights movement had instead demanded the nullification of the marriage benefits awarded by the government it would have undoubtedly not moved an inch towards its goal. The best that I can say is that Walters points the way to what should be the goal AFTER accomplishing basic recognition and legal protections of the LGBT movement.

[Kristen EJ Lauderdale · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were some ideas the author did a great job of drawing attention to: the problem with requiring gays to assimilate and not challenge norms too much being inherently homophobic; but then she expressed other criticisms and assumptions that I thought couldn't really be proven and seemed unnecessarily stereotypical, for example, she portrays gay marriage advocates as less feminist and less supportive of non-normative queerness, which kind of made me feel defensive. So I'm gay-married and in many ways my marriage is "just like everyone else's," but I was also a somewhat early supporter of trans rights, do not consider myself superior to single mothers, still care about women's equality within marriage, still care about homeless lgbtq youth, am accepting of polyamory and gender fluidity, and plenty of other things that aren't directly about me and are implied I must be falling short of including in some way.

[Lena · Rating 2 out of 5]

J'ai noté quelques trucs intéressants dans l'intro et sur le coming-out, mais l'autrice répète la même chose à l'infini et dit quand même pas mal de banalités. Trop déçue

[Sarah · Rating 1 out of 5]

Overall, the book was meh. I agree with most of her arguments, but the whole thing was just so unoriginal. If you already think that the LGBT rights movement is too L and G, too white, too interested in assimilation, too conservative, and too focused on sketchy pseudo-science to validate their born this way claims, then there is nothing new here. Let me put it this way — you see more interesting arguments See the rest of the review at bisexual-books.tumblr.com.

[Mills College Library]

323.3264 W2358 2014

[Frances Wood]

I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/13453585