Eugene Delgaudio: Transphobic Bigot

I do not understand how bigoted some people can be. I simply cannot manage to wrap my mind around how people can refuse to see other people as human beings.

A January 24, 2010, article showcased the bigotry of a Loudoun county supervisor named Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling). The Washington Post's Sholnn Freeman writes:

At a Jan. 6 meeting, supervisors voted to expand Loudoun's nondiscrimination policy to prohibit bias on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring by the county. Delgaudio fought the change in the meeting, saying he was especially offended by language in the measure that sought protection for transgendered people. In the debate, he called the board's attempt to protect transgendered people "freaky" and "bizarre." In a subsequent newsletter to supporters, Delgaudio wrote that "if a man dressed as a woman wants a job, you have to treat 'it' the same as a normal person."

In response to criticism about his words, Delgaudio read "a revised statement with the word 'it' taken out. He continued: 'With apologies to real-life Tootsies' and 'to all their defenders who are calling me all sorts of names and . . . are saying I should apologize'" (Freeman).

I don't know where to begin. I am appalled by Delgaudio's statements. I am horrified by Delgaudio in general. This is a man has been directly quoted as writing that "forcing the [Scouts] to hire homosexuals is the same as being an accessory to the rape of hundreds of boys" ("Anti-Tax in Loudoun, Anti-Gay Everywhere"), regarding whether the Boy Scouts should be allowed to ban gay men from being troop leaders. This is a man who is so blinded by bigotry and hatred that he cannot see people as people. He does not appear to be capable of being reasoned with.

What kind of person calls other groups of people "it"? Honestly? I realize that "it" is just one word, but it is completely dehumanizing. "It" should be reserved for things, like chairs and rocks. And--putting aside Delgaudio's inability to understand what the term transgender means--what is so wrong about a person who does not dress in normatively gendered clothing? I fail to see why even a man dressed as a woman (who, incidentally, would not be protected under nondiscrimination policies protecting sexual orientation or gender identity) would not be deserving of being treated "the same as a normal person."

Now, I realize that by stating "a man dressed as a woman" Delgaudio actually was referring to a transwoman; he is simply too bigoted to understand that neither the sex one was determined at birth, nor the subsequent gender one was raised as, are indicative of some form of innate, unchanging sex/gender that one must be. Nevertheless, clothing is just that. Why should what a person wears have any bearing on whether that person should be treated with respect?

And as far as Delgaudio's views on transgender people (not to mention gay people) . . . he just makes me sick. Truly. I generally try to ignore people like him. It's generally not worth the time and energy to rant about transphobic, homophobic bigots who are hateful and can't be reasoned with. It just upsets me and doesn't affect him.

At the same time, sometimes enough is enough, and I can't just let this slide. At some point in time, one needs to take a stand against all of the hate that's out there. And I think that in this case, one of the worst parts is that Delgaudio doesn't seem to realize how hateful his statements are. He actually seems to believe that his views are reasonable--that it's acceptable to first dismiss the legitimacy of transgender people's identities and then treat them as less than human, that it's logical to equate being gay and being a child rapist. It simultaneously outrages me and tears at my heart that someone could actually believe poison like this.

Not “Normal”

I've heard/read a lot of gay people argue about being "normal"--about being "just like everyone else" (read: just like straight people). A person called Vince wrote on the Queers United forum, "I dont know what the freaking problem is. Thanks God more people see us as normal. If you only consider youself to be gay not to be mainstream... poor you." This statement seems like a pretty good representation of that sort of sentiment.

To me, this sort of thinking--“Thank God more people see us as normal”--is exactly the sort of thinking that excludes those queers who are most marginalized. That’s the sort of thinking that wants drag queens to not “embarrass” them at Pride. That’s the sort of thinking of those who would disown queers simply for being themselves because who they are isn’t mainstream enough, safe enough, bland enough to blend in. “Those sorts of people” scare the straight people. It’s the idea that being queer is fine, as long as you look and act “straight.” And while we’re at it, let’s remember that often, the idea of what seems “straight” and what seems “gay” is deeply intertwined with gender norms. People who abide by typical gender norms--people who appear to be “gender-normal”--usually are assumed to be straight. People who somehow transgress gender norms are typically assumed to be gay. Homophobia often masks transphobia.

This emphasis on being seen as “normal” goes along with the idea that queer people must hide themselves in order to fit in, often even among people who are nominally tolerant of gay people. Being upset about Prop 8 or Question 1 or DADT or the lack of federal antidiscrimination laws that would protect the LGBT community is sometimes seen as being militantly gay and promoting the gay agenda. Being angry that being queer is seen as a grave threat to morality by many religious people is seen as being intolerant of people’s faith. Wanting the same legal rights, privileges, and protections as anyone else is seen as attempting to push our views on everyone else. Being openly queer--being out and proud and unwilling to simply keep our heads down and accept the status quo--is seen as practically inviting intolerance and bigotry.

In a Newsweek article called “King of Queens,” Ramin Setoodeh questions whether flamboyant gay male characters on TV shows may be hurting the gay cause by pushing the boundaries of what is considered socially acceptable too much. Setoodeh writes, “But if you want to be invited to someone else's party, sometimes you have to dress the part.” The problem with this line of thinking is that this is not “someone else’s party.” This is our society, our country, too. I am a citizen of the United States of America. This is my party. And I refuse to accept the idea that I should subdue who I am, change how I present myself, “normalize” myself, in order to have the rights and protections that I deserve as a citizen of this country. I should not be treating like a second-class citizen in my own country.

In a May 28, 2008, article titled “Why One Queer Person Is Not Celebrating California's Historic Gay Marriage Decision,” Mattilda Berstein Sycamore writes, “the gay marriage movement is busy fighting for a 1950s model of white-picket fence 'we're just like you' normalcy. And that's no reason to celebrate.”

Part of the reason why I dislike the “we’re just like you” mentality is that queers are not just like straight people. I’m not saying that there’s some sort of intrinsic difference between queer and straight people, other than the obvious difference in sexual orientation, which is the reason for the homosexual/heterosexual categories in the first place--by definition, they have at least that one difference. However, our society is a heterosexist, often homophobic, society, and that is the big difference that I am focusing on between queers and straights. Other than having some form of same-sex/same-gender/non-conventional-heterosexual desire or attraction, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other queer people don’t have anything inherently in common, just because of not being heterosexual in the traditional sense.

Nevertheless, all queers have to deal with not being heterosexual in a heterosexist society. Dealing with harassment and discrimination, lack of representation in the media, lack of the legal rights and protections that straight people have, constant messages that being straight is right or normal--dealing with all of this is an experience that, though it varies for everyone, all queers experience to some extent. And that is a distinct difference that makes queers different from straight people, and saying “we’re just like you” ignores this experience.

To me, being seen as "normal" is often the same as being invisible, as being seen as straight. I'm not saying that we, as queers, don't deserve the same rights, dignity, respect that non-queer people have. I'm not saying that all gay people, or all people under the LGBT umbrella, must be angry, activist, rebellious queers.

But I'll fight for my right to be a freak, to be a queer, to be other. It’s not that I want to be “other” just for the sake of being different; it’s that I don’t want to blend in when the crowd doesn’t adequately represent who I am. And I don't want to be normal until “normal” encompasses all aspects of who I am. When “normal” somehow embraces me being myself, and not being “just like everyone else,” then--and only then--will I consider “normal” to be good enough. Until then, to hell with normalcy.