The Relevance of the LGVMA
I imagine most of us have by now read the letter in the January 1, 1999, issue of the Journal of the AVMA by Dr. John Parker questioning the relevance of LGVMA. Tim wrote a very eloquent response which JAVMA also published and which was printed in the last edition of this newsletter. I’d like to add my own ruminations on the subject here.
At the end of February, I had the chance to attend an LGBT conference in Atlanta, Georgia. I was rather excited upon my arrival to find out that the keynote speaker for the conference was Urvashi Vaid, one of my long-time role models.
Vaid, many will remember, served as Public Information Director and Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force from 1986 to 1992. She was the first woman of color to head up a national LGBT political organization and currently serves as Director of the NGLTF’s Policy Institute.
She is one of the most articulate and insightful leaders of the LGBT movement, and I have always admired her ability to offer constructive moral criticism of the movement and offer concrete suggestions for the movement’s growth.
You’re probably asking what any of this has to do with the relevance of LGVMA. It’s quite simple. Vaid’s message has long been that we cannot effect real progress if we allow ourselves to devolve into single-issue groups that, to quote Dr. Parker, "divide and distract our profession."
Dr. Parker wrote that he could "find no legitimate connection between being a veterinarian and being a homosexual." I would argue that there is such a connection, that Vaid’s message speaks to that connection, and that therein lies the relevance of LGVMA.
We do not become veterinarians in a vacuum. First and foremost we are human beings – of different sexual and affectional orientations, of different races and ethnic backgrounds, of different abilities, and of different religious lifestyle choices. Upon becoming veterinarians, we do not check those identities at the door. Our lives within this profession are inevitably shaped by the forces that exist in our lives outside of the profession.
To say, then, that there is no "legitimate connection" between being a veterinarian and being a member of some other identity group is, at best, facile. At worst, it is wantonly ignorant. The challenge to LGVMA is to recognize and speak to the ways in which that connection affects our lives as professionals, while not losing sight of the other identities that shape us.
While the focus of LGVMA is primarily those issues affecting LGBT veterinary professionals, we cannot afford to ignore other issues within the profession, such as the role of women in our leadership or the recruitment of racial and ethnic minorities into the profession.
To blind ourselves to all but narrowly defined "gay" issues is to fall victim to what I like to call the "Rights Pie" fallacy. This is the concept of rights as a finite, quantifiable sum – a pie with only so many pieces to go around. It’s an idea that is frighteningly prevalent, and one that the Religious Right has used to great effect in their anti-gay campaigns. It is also patently wrong.
Dr. Parker apparently holds this worldview when he accuses us of dividing and distracting the profession, and if we adhere to his paradigm, he may well be correct. It is, therefore, imperative that we adopt a broad-minded approach to our work as an organization.
For instance, LGVMA membership includes women and racial and ethnic minorities. Therefore, issues of women or minority veterinarians are, to some extent, also our issues. While it may be inappropriate for LGVMA to take on every battle within the profession, we do need to recognize how other issues impact our members and ally ourselves with groups who are leading the way in those areas.
LGVMA is relevant to veterinary medicine only to the extent to which we engage ourselves in the profession as a whole. If we lose sight of the big picture in favor of narrow issues, the best we can hope for is what Vaid has dubbed "virtual equality" – a state of tolerance, but without true parity.
If, however, we work to bring an LGBT perspective to less narrowly defined issues within our profession, we may well enable the profession of the "gentle doctor" to live up to its fullest potential. That, I feel, is a goal worth fighting for.
Back
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page