In recent years, Canada has witnessed a significant fracture in cross-racial intersectional politics, particularly during the rise of the “parental rights” movement. The protests, which emerged in 2023 under the “1 Million March 4 Children” banner, were surprising in that they brought together a coalition of conservative, right-leaning, and Christian groups alongside Muslims and racialized immigrants. This unexpected alliance raised questions about the shifting dynamics within intersectional activism, especially in a country like Canada, where multiculturalism and solidarity among oppressed groups had long shaped social justice movements.
At the heart of this rupture lies the clash between the rights of different oppressed groups. On one side were predominantly white queer and trans activists advocating for gender-inclusive education, and on the other, religious and racialized communities opposed to these measures. This divide revealed the complexities of intersectional politics, where differing axes of oppression — such as religion, race, and sexual identity — can come into conflict, challenging the very solidarity that intersectionality aims to foster.
The Foundations of Intersectionality
Intersectionality, a term coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, was initially used to describe how Black women face overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination related to both race and gender (Crenshaw, 1989). Over time, intersectionality has expanded to include multiple axes of identity and oppression, recognizing that individuals are shaped by various interconnected factors, such as class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and disability.
Crenshaw argued that traditional frameworks for understanding discrimination often failed to account for the unique experiences of those who face multiple forms of marginalization. By examining these intersections, Crenshaw posited that activists and scholars could develop more nuanced approaches to social justice that recognize the complexity of lived experiences.
As intersectionality gained prominence, it became a foundational concept for activism aimed at addressing systemic inequality. Activists began using this framework to build coalitions between marginalized communities, uniting groups across lines of race, gender, class, and other identities to work toward collective liberation. However, the rupture in cross-racial intersectional politics in recent years raises an important question: What happens when the interests of these groups conflict?
Competing Oppressions: Religion and Sexuality in Conflict
The 2023 1 Million March 4 Children protests highlight the complexities that arise when different oppressed groups’ rights come into conflict. The parental rights movement, which includes religious and racialized immigrant communities, argues that the introduction of gender and sexual identity topics at an early age in schools is inappropriate and constitutes a form of premature sexualization of children. They express concerns that these discussions undermine parental authority, particularly when schools introduce sensitive subjects like gender identity and sexual orientation without prior parental consent. These groups believe that they, as parents, should have control over what their children are exposed to and when, particularly concerning issues related to sexuality and gender (The Heritage Foundation, 2019; Christian Post, 2023). Many argue that introducing these topics at a young age is not developmentally appropriate and that it violates their religious and cultural values.
On the other hand, queer and trans activists advocate for gender-inclusive education as a critical tool to combat homophobia and transphobia from an early age. LGBTQ+ advocates believe that schools should provide safe and affirming spaces for LGBTQ+ youth, many of whom may come from homes where their identities are not accepted. They argue that inclusive education is essential to create environments where LGBTQ+ children can express themselves freely and without fear of discrimination. Additionally, these activists support policies that allow students to explore their gender identities in school without necessarily informing parents, particularly when doing so might lead to family rejection or harm (GLSEN, 2022; The Trevor Project, 2021).
This clash highlights the complex challenge of balancing multiple forms of oppression within intersectional politics. As Patricia Hill Collins (2000) argues, intersectionality must recognize that individuals can occupy both privileged and marginalized positions simultaneously. In this case, religious and racialized communities — despite their historical experiences of discrimination and exclusion in Canada — find themselves at odds with another marginalized group, the queer and trans community. Both groups face systemic oppression, with LGBTQ+ individuals still encountering significant discrimination, especially in areas like healthcare, education, and personal safety. However, while the LGBTQ+ movement has gained visibility and political support in recent years, religious and racialized groups often struggle to influence national policy due to limited political and financial power.
The dilemma arises when both groups claim the mantle of oppression, but their goals are incompatible. As Nancy Fraser (1997) points out, social justice movements often face the challenge of addressing both “recognition” and “redistribution” claims. Recognition refers to the affirmation of cultural identities, while redistribution involves the fair allocation of material resources. In the case of the parental rights movement, religious communities demanded recognition of their cultural and religious values and concerns, while queer and trans activists sought redistributive justice in the form of access to inclusive education and healthcare. The intersectional framework, while powerful, struggles to reconcile these competing demands.
The Hierarchy of Oppression
The rupture in cross-racial intersectional politics also raises questions about the hierarchy of oppression. As Iris Marion Young (1990) argues, oppression is not a monolithic experience, and different forms of oppression cannot always be neatly compared or ranked. However, in practice, social justice movements often establish implicit hierarchies that prioritize certain forms of oppression over others. In this case, the clash between religious and sexual identity rights forces a reckoning with these implicit hierarchies.
For example, the queer and trans activists involved in the counter-protests framed their struggle as one of existential importance, highlighting the life-or-death stakes of denying gender-affirming care to trans youth. In contrast, religious communities emphasized the importance of preserving cultural and religious traditions, which they saw as under threat. Both groups framed their struggles as urgent and non-negotiable, leading to an impasse.
The concept of “oppression Olympics,” coined by scholar Elizabeth Martínez (1993), is relevant here. The term refers to the competitive nature of social justice movements, where different groups vie for recognition as the most oppressed. This competition can undermine solidarity and foster division, as different groups feel that their struggles are not being adequately recognized or prioritized.
Intersectionality’s Limits and the Need for New Approaches
The rupture in cross-racial intersectional politics suggests that intersectionality, while a powerful tool for understanding the complexities of oppression, may not be sufficient to address all conflicts between marginalized groups. As activist scholar Angela Davis (2016) notes, solidarity requires more than simply acknowledging shared oppression; it requires actively working to understand and support the struggles of others, even when those struggles conflict with one’s own interests. In the case of the parental rights movement, this means recognizing the validity of both queer and religious communities’ claims, while also finding ways to navigate the tensions between them. This requires moving beyond the binary logic of “us vs. them” and developing new frameworks for solidarity that can accommodate multiple, and sometimes competing, forms of oppression. One potential solution is the concept of “differential consciousness,” developed by Chela Sandoval (2000). Differential consciousness allows activists to shift between different modes of resistance, depending on the context and the needs of the moment. By recognizing that different situations require different strategies, activists can avoid the pitfalls of rigid ideological frameworks and adapt to the complexities of real-world struggles.
Moving Forward
In an effort to minimize personal biases, I asked ChatGPT to apply Chela Sandoval’s concept of Differential Consciousness to the issue at hand. Here’s how this framework offers a solution for navigating the conflict between religious and LGBTQ+ communities in the context of the 1 Million March 4 Children protests:
Adapting Strategies
Differential consciousness encourages activists to adjust their approach based on context. For instance, when advocating for gender-affirming care, a more assertive approach might be necessary, while issues like LGBTQ+ representation in curricula could be approached with dialogue and compromise.
Building Shared Coalitions
Both LGBTQ+ and religious communities could find common ground on topics such as anti-bullying programs or mental health initiatives, areas where collaboration might be easier. This allows both sides to work together on less polarizing issues while maintaining their core beliefs.
Embracing Pluralism
By embracing pluralism, both sides can maintain their core values. For example, LGBTQ+ activists can advocate for protections in schools without infringing on religious groups’ rights to parental opt-outs, allowing for a balance between inclusivity and respect for cultural or religious values.
Intersectional Leadership
Those who embody both identities — such as LGBTQ+ individuals within religious communities — can play a critical role in mediating between both groups, encouraging mutual understanding.
It is also important to consider that these conflicts often don’t exist in isolation. The interplay of money and political power in activism can further complicate these issues, as funding and influence can shape how movements prioritize certain goals over others (Walker, 2014). Activism often reflects not just grassroots struggles but the influence of wealth and political lobbying, which can skew representation and decision-making in favor of those with greater resources (Han, 2016). In this case, it’s worth examining where the money for each side of the activism is coming from and who holds the upper hand in terms of political power and financial backing. And what is directing the funding in a certain direction? This can reveal deeper power imbalances that influence which voices dominate public discourse and decision-making.
References
Christian Post. (2023). Parents’ rights vs. LGBTQ+ ideology in schools. https://www.christianpost.com
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.
Davis, A. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement. Haymarket Books.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “postsocialist” condition. Routledge.
GLSEN. (2022). National school climate survey: The experiences of LGBTQ youth in our nation’s schools. https://www.glsen.org/research/school-climate-survey
Han, H. (2016). How organizations develop activists: Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. Oxford University Press.
Martínez, E. (1993). Beyond Black/White: The racisms of our time. Social Justice, 20(1/2), 22–34.
Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the oppressed. University of Minnesota Press.
The Heritage Foundation. (2019). Sex education and parental rights: Why it matters to protect parents and their children. https://www.heritage.org
The Trevor Project. (2021). National survey on LGBTQ youth mental health. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2021
Walker, E. T. (2014). Grassroots for hire: Public affairs consultants in American democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
コメント