Cathy Cohen

-Cathy Cohen “Whose Black Lives Matter?”

Cathy Cohen, Interview with Sarah J. Jackson 

"The hesitation to making trans struggles central to our work, at least among many black feminists of my generation, those who came to feminism when second-wave feminism was dominant (if we even want to adhere to that wave structure), is that some of the most visible or prominent trans spokespeople seem to affirm a strict, conservative, and essentialist gender binary. I think people often confuse the more public and visible articulations of some trans celebrities with a universal trans politics. I believe that we have to pay attention to the nuances in trans politics. Just as LGBT politics is different from queer politics and women's politics is different from feminist politics, we have to acknowledge that an essentialist trans politics is very different from a radical feminist trans politics. Thus, concern emerges when one hears the language of what seems like a call to biological essentialism—such as when Caitlyn Jenner says “I am a woman…. My brain is much more female than it is male.” I think that essentialist propaganda drives me and my feminist friends crazy. But when we hear the informed and radical stories of trans folks who refuse to live on the binary or someone like Janet Mock who, while choosing a more traditional gender performance, talks incisively about the ways being a trans woman is related to the positionality of cis black women, who also are at the bottom of the racial order and gender hierarchy, the connection between the lives and struggles of black cis and trans women are made clear, highlighting the larger structures that we’re both fighting against. A radical trans analysis makes clear that our struggle is not so that everyone can find their essentialist selves, but instead this movement is about breaking down systems of oppression based on gender and class and race and sexuality, that limit the ability of people to have full and happy lives—from having good jobs, to having the kind of intimate partners that they want, to experiencing joy, to having agency, to having control over their bodies and sexuality."

In contrast, Cathy Cohen in "Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queen," is more concerned with the multiple systems of oppression. She states that sexuality is not the main sector for the oppression of people because, as she says, "being heterosexual isn’t enough" to grant you all the benefits of society (442). Although, she agrees that heterosexual privilege negatively impacts and constrains the lived experiences of "queers," so too does racism, classism and sexism. This is due to the multiple systems of oppression that operate to limit the entitlement of rights and status. In explaining, she critiques queers politics as they have failed to address the much more deep-rooted dilemma---systemic domination. As she mentions, there are also versions of domination and normalization being replicated and employed by non-privileged group members. For example, although heterosexuals have more privilege than white “queers,” white “queers” may be more privileged when put into context with black “queers.” Meaning, not all people encounter the same experiences because each system of oppression overlaps to deny or approve the rights of individuals. Furthermore, we also have the “welfare queens” that although fit into the category of heterosexual, are no perceived as normal, worthy of state support (442). Then so, she questions who really fits into this category of normativity. In this case, most of us don’t. For that reason, she suggests that we take a turn from “assimilation” politics and instead aim towards a movement building rooted on the share marginal relationship between people. In sharing experiences of oppression, people can form coalitions that build indigenous resources, shape consciousness and ultimately act collectively.