0:00:00.934,0:00:05.810
There's a question that maybe comes up for people about whether inclusion is an incremental step on the way to something else, right.

0:00:05.810,0:00:10.181
This is something that's often been said about trans people: "we'll come back for you later, we swear!"

0:00:10.181,0:00:18.393
Sexual orientation non-discrimination act passed in 2002 here in New York State they decided that they could leave us for later.

0:00:18.393,0:00:30.167
So those ideas about whether or not its an incremental step, whether an emergent inclusion opportunity is an incremental step are more or less believable in different contexts.

0:00:30.167,0:00:34.017
But to even ask that question, we have to do an analysis that's like

0:00:34.017,0:00:37.743
measuring these options against our vision, first of all

0:00:37.743,0:00:41.746
what is your vision about family structure and should it determine whether or not yo have health insurance

0:00:41.746,0:00:45.017
asking ourselves questions like that, should it determine whether or not we can immigrate

0:00:45.017,0:00:49.683
what's our actual vision of how we want that to look so that we can know whether or not we're going there

0:00:49.683,0:00:57.128
what's it an incremental step towards. Second the question of whether or not the incremental reform strengthens the oppressive system

0:00:57.128,0:01:03.433
and what the costs of that might be. Are we making it harder for ourselves? The organization Critical Resistance, someone from there told me once

0:01:03.433,0:01:04.343
that they ask themselves: in fifty years are we going to be glad we did this? And there's this thing about capitalism that makes us only want to look two to three minutes ahead.

0:01:04.343,0:01:07.977
So its really really interesting politically to allow ourselves ask questions like, in fifty years (of course you can never know what your gonna feel like in fifty years, or if you're gonna feel anything)

0:01:18.433,0:01:27.267
but we might wanna think about those sorts of timelines. I think we also have to ask ourselves does this divide our community by leaving out vulnerable people?

0:01:27.267,0:01:39.268
That's probably the first thing to ask. Is this incremental step conveniently eliminating the people who are easiest to eliminate. That should be a no go.

0:01:39.268,0:01:48.145
And also does this incremental step invite backlashes that will again harm the most vulnerable, because that's who backlashes always harm. Even though a lot of the rights people have been fighting for

0:01:48.145,0:01:57.017
only benefit the very few, they usually harm the people who are at the very bottom even if hey benefit the people at the very top.

0:01:57.017,0:02:02.394
So these questions require a politics that is more than just a single issue identity politics. Its not a politics where you vote for pro-gay politicians

0:02:02.394,0:02:06.932
because they have a good gay vote even though they hate people on welfare and they want to build a prison (Gavin Newsom)

0:02:06.932,0:02:25.750
Instead its based on a commitment (I don't know if he wants to build a prison, but he probably does and he definitely hates people on welfare). Its a commitment to an understanding that social justice doesn't trickle-down and so we should center the experiences of the most vulnerable first

0:02:25.750,0:02:35.459
that's how we should determine our agenda. If we deal with the problems that the rich are having with the economic crisis, like they used to have $5 million and now they have $3 million

0:02:35.459,0:02:49.074
Then there's no reason to believe that dealing with those problems will address the issues of the poor. We can make sure they have their bonuses back and we know that the real hit of this crisis

0:02:49.074,0:02:56.182
is still gonna be felt by people with the lowest income. Similarly if you address the problems of white gay people who want to marry an immigrant

0:02:56.182,0:03:01.100
you won't necessarily address the problems of two undocumented queer people who aren't partnered with a citizen.

0:03:01.100,0:03:07.267
Although if you address the problems of undocumented queer people you will address the problem of the person who wants to marry somebody who's an immigrant

0:03:07.267,0:03:18.135
And if you address the issues of professional white lesbians and parental rights, you won't solve the problem of low-income mothers of color or imprisoned mothers who the child welfare system

0:03:18.135,0:03:24.476
targets for separation from their families, but if you do the reverse if we really up-ended the child welfare system and made it about

0:03:24.476,0:03:31.683
retaining unification of families and communities then inevitably that would have beneficial effects on rich white gay people who want to make sure they

0:03:31.683,0:03:38.088
can affirm their relationships and their parental rights. It does trickle up, it doesn't trickle down. We know that.

0:03:38.088,0:03:45.964
We've had a while to figure that our since Reagan and before. So I'm curious about how we come to still have this politics that's based on a notion of

0:03:45.964,0:04:03.515
trickle-down social justice. I think that this is an exciting moment right now in the U.S. Even though we're aware that many of Obama's policy stances are not sufficiently different from the neoliberal trend, and that's a sobering reality,

0:04:03.515,0:04:09.487
we also see his election and the work that went in to it has mobilized a lot of people and shifted a lot of people's experience of political possibility.

0:04:09.487,0:04:18.037
People feel different about things and that matters, right? A lot of people are feeling like they might take up some interventions that they might not have felt

0:04:18.037,0:04:26.453
comfortable taking up under Bush. I think I see that, I hope, I could be making it up. And this is a really important moment for reframing and for

0:04:26.453,0:04:32.762
expanding our demands and our expectations and for taking up a politics that attends to the distribution of life chances

0:04:32.762,0:04:39.282
a politics that's often called impossible or politically unviable. I think that that's what a lot of the politics I'm thinking about are considered.