Alternative Forms of Life

Photo from PinkNews (2019). PinkNews (Braidwood, 2019) reported this very first LGBTQ+ cover sparked outrage amongst Christian groups for promoting homosexuality and being a danger if seen by young children. The outrage reinforces what McWhorter (2009) describes as certain groups, such as LGBTQ+, being seen as a moral threat.

Enemies of the Pro-Family Movement

By the 1970s, alternative forms of life, such as homosexuality, gender nonconformity, feminism, and belonging to a group outside of the Nordic Nuclear Family was seen as anti-family and a threat to society (McWhorter, 2009).

The list of the “enemy of the people who had to be neutralized” (McWhorter, 2009, p. 286) is expansive including Communists, hippies, divorce attorneys, supporters of public-funded childcare, abortionists, queer people, as well as those fighting for racial equality and disability rights (McWhorter, 2009). This us versus them biopolitical warfare was driven by eugenics and the normalizing mentality that “nobody wants a baby the experts deem abnormal” (McWhorter, 209, p. 285).

All the previously mentioned enemies were those who fell within abnormal parameters as they refused to uphold the Nordic Nuclear Family as the ultimate goal. It was argued that homosexual parents would ultimately irreparably destroy their children though multiple studies showed this to be untrue (McWhorter, 2009). The pro-family movement targeted queer individuals, to hurt and degrade them, treating them as threats to children and youth (McWhorter, 2009).

Queer people, as well as the other groups previously mentioned, were dangerous to society, or at least that is what the citizenry was shaped to believe. While these arguments may seem like relics of the past, the influence of the eugenics and pro-family movement can be seen in modern society to this day.

The Lived Experiences of Queer and Polyamorous Parents

The Hidden Injustices of Queer Parenting ft. Daniela & Nancy of LES Studio
presented from Queer Collective

Daniela and Nancy discuss their experiences with queer parenting, coming from different cultural backgrounds, experiences with traditional marriage, what the roles of father, mother, or parent mean, and how they both share DNA with their child. They share the differences between acceptance and respect regarding queer relationships and parenting. The challenges that mothers face versus mothers in queer relationships are brought to light through Daniela and Nancy’s experiences, including the discrimination faced for same-sex couples seeking fertility treatments.

(Queer Collective, 2023)

Parenting While Polyamorous | Care and Feeding | Slate’s parenting show Podcast presented by Slate

VISUAL AID

Jess and Ash discuss what it means to be a partner, the importance of communication, misconceptions of polyamory, and how they navigate parenthood within a polyamorous relationship. Jess and Ash discuss the discomfort non-polyamorous people express when they are confronted by polyamorous parents, including the idea that polyamorous parents are sexually inappropriate and unsafe for children. Jess and Ash share that many of the negative reactions about polyamorous parenting are based around misconceptions that polyamorous couples are constantly exposing their children to other people, including the breakdown of those relations.

(Slate, 2024)

These lived experiences show the after effects of scientific racism and eugenics “still underlies much of our vocabulary and thought” (McWhorter, 2009, p.283). It has shaped our approach to policies and what we view as normal versus abnormal whether it is conscious or unconscious (McWhorter, 2009). Eugenicists created a foundation which, even if it is no longer heralded as eugenics, still exists within society and family planning is one area which still feels the largest enforcement of the eugenics norms (McWhorter, 2009). As these lived experiences show us, Queer, Trans, and Polyamorous parents are still targeted as potentially unhealthy or even dangerous citizens for childrearing.

Case Study: Access to Normative Power

McWhorter (2009) clearly demonstrates in the previous section those who had ‘abnormal lifestyles’ were considered morally corrupt and a threat to society. However, Lenon and Peers (2017) argue that even within the those deemed abnormal there are moves to power through racism, ableism, and homonormativity. There are deep ties to the eugenics movement which still dictate biopower within current society which are worth examining.

The example used revolves around a case in which a white lesbian couple filed a wrongful birth lawsuit after mistakenly receiving donation from a Black sperm donor (Lenon and Peers, 2017). The couple was five months pregnant when they were alerted to the mistake and chose to deliver a baby of mixed race but argued “that the child’s existence [had] caused ‘personal injuries, medical expenses, pain, suffering, emotional distress, and other economic and non-economic losses’” (Lenon & Peers, 2017, p. 142). While the case was dismissed, the impact is still evident as many were appalled a baby of mixed Black heritage was seen as ‘wrongful birth’ (Lenon & Peers, 2017). This requires examination of the concept of ‘wrongful birth’ (usually reserved for children born with disability) as in this case race was seen as parallel to disability (Lenon & Peers, 2017). The case was driven by homonormativity, which is based on “sexual politics that [do] not contest dominant heteronormative institutions” (Lenon & Peers, 2017, p. 146) but instead re-affirms those institutions. It was additionally driven by racism, ableism, and a clear connection to the eugenics movement. The lawsuit used the language of eugenics: family, traits, genetic defects and parentage (Lenon & Peers, 2017) within its arguments. The mother in this case lost her complete access to white privilege (lack of surveillance, violence, unaffected by daily racism, and expectation of welcome in all places) and therefore lost status (Lenon & Peers, 2017).

This shows how within the subgroups of what is considered ‘abnormal’ there is still an ongoing presence of seeking normalization through upholding the classifications left behind by eugenics. In this case, Nordic Family structure was being upheld, even by a lesbian couple, by desiring a white baby who would be genetically closer to themselves. Arguably it is the access to normative power which was disrupted in this case. Power is not equally distributed among those oppressed by eugenics and the biopolitical landscape it left behind.

Two-Spirit and Queer Indigenous Canadian Experiences: Eugenics and Colonialism

The following videos explain the Two-Spirit identity through the voices of Indigenous People. It is important to recognize, even though Two-Spirit is itself a relatively new term, the existence of Two-Spirit people within Indigenous communities and culture is nothing new at all.

Eugenics questioned the validity of the relationships Indigenous People in North America had arguing Indigenous men had little sexual passion for their women (McWhorter, 2009). The eugenicists of the time argued this made the Indigenous man treat Indigenous women “like beasts of burden and [they] did not love their children” (McWhorter, 2009, p. 258). Eugenicists believed this to be the reason for a lack of civilization amongst Indigenous People (McWhorter, 2009). This eugenic claim placed Indigenous people, their families, culture, and relationships as less than the Nordic standard.

This is part of the colonial experience of Indigenous People. It is important to note that the process of colonization is ongoing, and this is a small part of the entire process, but an important one as it tries to justify treating and categorizing Indigenous People as less-than or subhuman. Intersecting within this eugenics labelling are the identities of Two-Spirit and Queer Indigenous People. Their experiences of eugenics-based colonization treat them as less-than for being Indigenous and for being queer, even though the identities are coexisting and inseparable.

Failler (2023) describes the impact of “homocolonial framing of remembrance” (para. 2) when looking at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights’ decision to exclude Two-Spirit and Indigenous queer people from their LGBTQ+ content, commemorative coin, and celebration. By doing this, the museum upholds definitions of queerness as defined by settler colonialism and whiteness, or its proximity to it (Failler, 2023). The following quote from Failler (2023) is important to share in its entirety as it showcases the preference for types of knowledge and the loss experienced when voices are silenced:

The CMHR’s avoidance of ‘difficult knowledge’

and its preference instead for ‘lovely knowledge’ that works to shore up feelings of (homo)national pride by relying on simplistic progress narratives measured by the advancements of the most privileged, comes at a cost to its ability to engage museumgoers and the broader public in deeper, meaningful conversations about how to enact change. (Para. 8)

The museum excluded Two-Spirit representation from its LGBTQ+ history and excluded Two-Spirit from its Indigenous history, making it as though Two-Spirit people were never present in discussions around human rights. Colonization and eugenics work together when it comes to silencing the voices of Two-Spirit and Indigenous queer people.

Summary

By the 1970s, alternative forms of life, such as homosexuality, gender nonconformity, feminism, and belonging to a group outside of the Nordic Nuclear Family was seen as anti-family and a threat to society (McWhorter, 2009).
Eugenics drove an us versus them mentality which targeted various 'types' of people including gender divers, sexually diverse, hippies, feminists, disabled, Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour.
Pro-family movement targeted others as threats to society and dangerous to children and young people.
Those targeted as 'other' could access power by adhering to Pro-Family standards such as proximity to whiteness, following heteronormative family values (even within homosexual couples), and upholding the state's value system.
These structures implemented are still at play today and still uphold Nordic Family structures even with an appearance of acceptance for 'others'.
The eugenics movement and arguments for upholding the Nordic Family structure as superior are imbedded within colonization and continue to have impacts on Indigenous People, especially Queer and Two-Spirit Indigenous People.

Designed and written by Amanda Gear

References

Braidwood, E. (2019, January 18). Conservative Christians decry parents magazine over gay couple on cover. PinkNews. https://www.thepinknews.com/2019/01/18/parents-gay-couple-christians/

Egale Canada. (2018, January 16). Two Spirits, One Voice. YouTube. https://youtu.be/-MM7hM-Q_QM?si=nWSEFqQ9yWqUgVoG

Failler, A. (2023). Unsettling homocolonial frames of remembrance: Two-Spirit and Indigiqueer interventions at the museum. Memory Studies, 16(1), 12-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980221144545

Queer Collective. (2023, May 11). The Hidden Injustices of Queer Parenting ft. Daniela & Nancy of LES Studio. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmhPx2V6DMI

Lenon, S., & Peers, D. (2017). ‘wrongful’ inheritance: Race, disability and sexuality in Cramblett v. midwest sperm bank. Feminist Legal Studies, 25(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-017-9347-y

McWhorter, L. (2009). Racism and sexual oppression in Anglo-America: A genealogy. Indiana University Press.

OurStories eTextbook. (2018, June 15). Ma-Nee Chacaby talks about Two Spirit identities. YouTube. https://youtu.be/juzpocOX5ik?si=lMldr0WLjEHdbdY1

Slate. (2024, April 15). Parenting While Polyamorous | Care and Feeding | Slate’s parenting show Podcast. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kBZQUbmxeg

them. (2018, December 11). What Does “Two-Spirit” Mean? | InQueery | them. YouTube. https://youtu.be/A4lBibGzUnE?si=0ZrKUeX7U5myYz_b