Tolerance used to be buzz word in some marginalized communities hoping to gain equality — until people started to realize that “tolerating” something or someone was not a particularly favorable stance.
You tolerate mosquitoes if you live in Iowa.
You tolerate humidity if you live in D.C.
You tolerate your neighbor’s lawn mower on Saturday morning, your neighbor’s kid’s stereo on Saturday night, and your neighbor, when he or she wants to talk to you in the front yard.
You tolerate things that are unpleasant, but that you must be forced to endure. Once we figured this out, we went for “acceptance.” It sounds a lot better, but is it really that much different?
You (eventually) accept a terminal diagnosis.
You (eventually) accept the fact that your kid is in love with someone you hate.
You (eventually) accept the fact that you got fired, laid off, dumped, or rejected.
But acceptance still has its unspoken baggage — “I accept you — in spite of your sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic background, religion, pathetic bank account, unimpressive job, really bad hair.” Acceptance also comes with a disclaimer.
Not only that, but the whole idea of acceptance can often be accompanied by a notion of generosity and do-goodliness on the part of the acceptor, who can walk away feeling very self-satisfied that he or she was able to put prejudices aside and accept you for who you are.
This still leaves you in the subordinate position — the position of being the one who is accepted. And for this, you are supposed to be grateful.
I use “acceptance” all the time, and until there is a better word — one that really signifies an equal balance between various individuals or groups — I will probably keep using it.
But it is not un-problematic. And sometimes I would rather be honestly “tolerated” by someone who dislikes me than “accepted” by someone who’s looking to earn a merit badge.
Too cynical? Thoughts?
“Welcomed”.
Grace
Thought provoking post, Matt. I’ve often thought that tolerance is a poor substitute for acceptance, but I never considered the problems inherent in that position as well. Thanks for open my eyes to this equally troublesome stance. I’ll be thinking about your post for days!
embraced- actually has two positive meanings!
I’ve been uncomfortable with “acceptance” before and I couldn’t quite articulate why, but this post says it. “Acceptance” is always already haunted by the difference and the privilege separating the one accepting and the one being accepted. I shouldn’t have to feel like someone’s done me a favor if they get my pronoun right.
I think the “do-goodliness” you mentioned also contributes to my response to your question from yesterday’s post. On my campus, it certainly is increasingly hip to be trans, which was great for a while. Now, though, I’ve realized that I’m one of only two out, visible trans students at this school and the attention to our transness can overwhelm the fact that we’re individual human beings with other identities, too. People have asked to interview us, even do school projects on us (one wanted to shadow us for a day–why? Is my coffee and homework more transsexual than a normal person’s?). Is our celebrity the result of our exuberant, glowing personalities? I’d like to think so, but more often than not I think our allies are just really, really excited about having trans people on whom to demonstrate their own acceptance.
Go to a queer women’s event as a trans woman and hit on some people there. The difference between ‘tolerence’ and ‘acceptance’ becomes apparent pretty quickly. I know the difference and being accepted is very different from the examples of the meaning of the word that you gave above. When you are truly accepted its not by people who are hoping to get a ‘liberal cookie’ its because they actually accept you. People that are looking for that cookie are only tolerating you in reality.
Thanks for all the great comments. I really like the terms “welcomed” and “embraced.” They’re kind of “mutual” terms that don’t necessarily establish a hierarchy.
James, I’m sorry, but it made me laugh out loud when you talked about the student who wanted to shadow you for a day. I wonder what people think we actually do. If somebody shadowed me for a day, hoping to see into my “transsexual world,” they would be so disappointed. And by about 9 a.m., they would be as bored as I usually am–unless they think a shower and then Raisin Bran for breakfast is exotic. Although lately I have been eating eggs.
Wendy, I like what you said, and I especially like you last sentence about people hoping to get a “liberal cookie” — that this is really just tolerance.
As usual, I thank all of you for reading and for your personal input. I really enjoy reading the comments and they always make me think.
I have always had problems with the word “acceptance”, and this post sums up why. I use “tolerance” to refer to what my goal is from the larger world while I expect acceptance from my friends. I’ve found that this is because my high school accepted me but did not really tolerate me, and I have learned to prefer blatant tolerance.
“Affirmed” is another term I’ve been seeing. I like “embraced”. I just scanned the e-mails I have been getting from co-workers, who have just been told. Every one of them supportive, but they use none of these terms. They are saying things like, “Congratulations”, “You have my love and support”, “I want to be an ally”. “Respect” is a word several of them have used. Maybe that is the best word we are looking for. I don’t want tolerance. I don’t want to be just accepted. I want respect. And love wouldn’t be bad either.
Thank you for this Matt. I learned that acceptance does not mean approval so where does that leave us? It is then the same as tolerance,yes?
I can definitely appreciate “affirmed” and “supported”, as Jill suggests. I think those words express exactly what I hope for from my allies.
As for the student who wanted to shadow me, Matt, I also had to fight hard not to laugh. I’ve been eating eggs for breakfast lately too… Maybe it’s because we’re both transsexuals…
Affirm, support, respect — all those seem mutual, which I like.
James, there’s probably something really Freudian about the eggs that I don’t want to think about!
Jill, congratulations! I’m really glad to hear it.
Achieving tolerance is a first step up in human interaction regarding confronting differences. Def:sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
Acceptance is the next step and one which almost seems impossible to achieve – moving up from “sympathy or indulgence” to appreciating that the differences can co-exist and one is not right and the other wrong. This seems to defy logic – If I am right in my strongly held beliefs, aren’t you wrong by believing something else?
In most cases true tolerance might be all that is required in a relationship. But some goals requiring joint efforts will require acceptance of the party’s differences.
And then there is love ….
Except I have a problem with this. As free people we have the right to live our lives the way we choose, so long as we don’t infringe upon the rights of others. You have a right to live your lives as transsexuals if you so choose. But you have no right to tell people who disapprove and don’t accept that lifestyle that they cannot do so. If they feel like voicing their disapproval, they have a right to do so. Can they take away your right to live that way? No. But the backwards discrimination against people exercising their right to free speech and free thought has to end. You have a right to live, think, and say what you want, and so do they. NEITHER sides should be ever be punished for this.
Anyone has a right to voice “disapproval” about anything – as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, as you say. Disapproval is very different from discrimination, which should be, but isn’t always, prohibited by law.
But there really is no “backwards discrimination.” It is almost impossible for those who have no power to legally discriminate against those who do have power. But voicing opinions is legally protected in most cases.
As Grace has said below, the need to transition is a medical condition – not a “lifestyle.” It has been determined as a medical necessity by the U.S. Tax Court (as well as by many doctors and medial organizations). But even disapproval of medical conditions is still acceptable.
Anyone can “disapprove” of people who have cancer and are treated for it (the cancer “lifestyle”). Anyone can “disapprove” of people who have diabetes and are treated for it (the diabetes “lifestyle”). By the same token, anyone can “disapprove” of people who have a medical condition that involves a misalignment of sex and gender and are treated for it (the transsexual “lifestyle”).
But that doesn’t mean that those being “disapproved of” cannot express their concern/irritation/anger at this disapproval. As trans people with little to no power, we are not in a position to “punish” those who “disapprove” of us. We are only in a position to say that we want laws to protect us so that “disapproval” does not turn into discrimination.
Again, you have a right to express your opinions against trans people, and trans people will not, nor are we in a position to, “punish” you for that. But that doesn’t mean that we won’t have gripe with it, or at least make an attempt to point out the misconceptions – so check out Grace’s comment below.
Thanks for reading.
Evan, you appear to be laboring under some misconceptions. The most important one for present purposes is the misconception that anyone in this conversation, anywhere, at any time, said that you should not be able to voice your disapproval.
And, guess what? We TLBG people have a right to our voices, too! And in this particular case, we discussed what terms might be most apt when we verbalized, vocalized, VOICED what we wanted in this society which we share with you and others. And the conversation was pleasant and good-natured, until you came along and “[had] a problem with [it]“.
In fact, look: you voiced your disapproval, even on someone else’s blog, which can be moderated and where you and I have, in fact, no right to free speech. Congratulations.
But that’s just the surface. You have some other misconceptions to work on. For instance:
Transsexuals do not choose to be transsexual. Indeed, almost all transsexuals would greatly prefer to have been born cissexual. Being transsexual in this society is very difficult, and sometimes fatal. So we’re not choosing it.
We may choose how to act on the fact that we are transsexual, but that’s a rather different thing. If you see a co-worker, for instance, who transitions, that person has always been transsexual, even though from your perspective he or she was “normal” at first and then “became” transsexual. No, he or she was always transsexual, and has chosen to transition, which necessitates you seeing it.
Even when we choose to transition, it is not a “lifestyle”, any more than being Christian (for example) is a “lifestyle”. “Lifestyle” is what kind of car you can afford or choose. “Lifestyle” is what color drapes you choose, or whom you like to hang out with at the beach, or what kind of stamps your collection specializes in.
My gender identity is not clothing. My gender identity is not consumer goods. My gender identity is not the people I associate with. My gender identity is PART OF ME, more essentially me than my legs, or my hands, or my voice. I WISH I could choose to change it. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. It would make my life so much EASIER.
But I can’t. And neither can other trans people, even though almost all of us try really, really hard to be something we aren’t, to avoid the slings and arrows and agonies of living in a society which also contains a lot of people who are laboring under mistaken beliefs about us.
So, Evan, here I’m voicing my disapproval of your unconscious assumptions. You need to self-educate. Examine your preconceptions. Cast the beam out of thine own eye before you turn to the motes in ours.
Grace
I would argue that tolerance is restraint without action. Acceptance, on the other hand, is to embrace someone’s differences and this is altogether different.
Putting up with somebody is one thing, accepting them as a friend is quite another. For example, work colleagues usually put up with each other because quite frankly there is little alternative when you’re stuck in the same place 10 hours a day together. You have to learn to tolerate each other which means putting up with things you don’t necessarily like or even approve of. If you refuse to tolerate (pertaining to this example) – you’re only alternative would be to look for another job.
On the other hand, you can only really ‘accept’ somebody if you have a good relationship with them e.g. you share similar interests or goals, same sense of humour, etc.
So I was thinking about the difference between “acceptance” and “tolerance” and decided to google articles comparing the two. And I got this. It’s an insightful article and I’m glad I read it.
From what I’ve seen, tolerance is as many have said- enduring or putting up with someone or something, regardless of one’s opinion on it. It’s mostly done for practical purposes.
I always thought acceptance was a better term, and one that made a lot more sense. Yet I have to admit your article brings up a point I had not really considered, namely the fact that acceptance implies approval, which implies a hierarchy. So you’re right, it’s certainly not the ideal term.
I’m not transexual, but I feel I can relate on some level. I have Asperger’s Syndrome and went to a special education school for years, and though the exact situation is different, people treat things like Asperger’s and autism much the same way as they treat transexuality or any other thing that makes someone a minority. They show support, they’re curious and press to know more information, and on rare occasions they show prejudice. They do their best to understand. Many of them have fine intentions, although there are always those that are only looking to make themselves seem righteous or caring or something in their own eyes; admirable qualities, to be sure, but it would be better if they simply had genuine interest instead of trying to stroke their own egos.
I think the best situation would really be if we didn’t throw around words like tolerance or acceptance at all. That we did accept each other for who we were, but we were actually blind to race or religion or whatever differences that one might have to someone else, and simply treated them (and ideally thought of them) as another person and nothing more from the get-go. So no one would really care if you’re transexual or I’ve got Asperger’s or anything like that at all. Maybe that thinking is too simplistic, though…?
One final note to Evan. There’s no such thing as backwards discrimination. It’s plain old discrimination regardless of minority or societal status. Discrimination towards minorities simply has more attention called to it, but it’s all the same nonetheless.
Acceptance is defined as “The act or process of accepting. The state of being accepted; acceptable. A favorable reception; approval. Belief in something; agreement.”
Tolerance is defined as “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.”
So, for example, if an Atheist practiced acceptance with his Jewish neighbor he would need to approve of and believe in the Jewish faith…that would make him a Jew not an atheist.
If he tolerated his Jewish neighbor he could recognize and respect his neighbors beliefs while maintaining his own.
Those are the definitions. Now my opinion…
There is no excuse for hate based on religion, skin color, sexual preference or anything else for that matter. But the idea of mandating acceptance through law is a slippery slope. Everyone deserves respect and recognition but to expect others to approve of and believe in the same things we do is a flawed argument I’m afraid.
@evansr: I don’t think “acceptance” by an atheist of his Jewish neighbor means “acceptance” of his neighbor’s faith – it just means acceptance of the person of his neighbor. (speaking as someone who is both atheist and an active member of a Jewish community). There is a big difference – one that gets confused currently. “Acceptance” of gay or trans people doesn’t mean one has to become gay or trans – it just means acceptance that they exist, have a right to exist, alongside someone not gay or trans. “Acceptance” I think is a pretty basic expectation from others – and somewhat weak compared to the alternatives – but it beats non-acceptance. What does it mean to Not Accept a trans or gay person?
@Jill Davidson – I agree with every example you just gave. Acceptance of a gay or trans person does not mean you have to become gay or trans. And the acceptance of a neighbor or any other human being by definition means that you agree they exist and believe that they exist.
The confusion in my opinion comes when we begin to put a label on ourselves or others and expect acceptance in regards to the way we live,the partners we have or the god we worship or don’t worship.
For example – You can accept your neighbor and even accept the fact that they are Jewish but by definition you cannot accept their faith and retain your own beliefs. You can recognize and respect their faith…which is tolerance. The same holds true for the christian community ( who in my opinion has done a terrible job of practicing tolerance) and the gay or trans gender community. We can accept them as a member of society without accepting the way they live their lives.
If christians began to demand acceptance they would be saying they are demanding others to approve of and believe in the way they live and worship, and unfortunately some christians do.
None of this means we are not to recognize and respect the lives other people live. Unfortunately too many people have used the lack of acceptance to justify ugly, hateful and sometimes fatal behavior.
Some will say the way we live our life is not a choice in regards to sexual identity or preference. There are others who will say the religion they practice is not a choice.
For me it all boils down to the idea that one can dictate to me or anyone else what to believe in. That doesn’t mean that all people as well as the life they live etc. do not need to be recognized and respected, they most certainly do. But no one will ever be able to dictate the beliefs of others and that is a huge distinction.
At the core of acceptance is approval and belief. The core of tolerance is recognition and respect. Blurring the distinction between the two is something that happens way too often and is incredibly dangerous in my opinion.
And I want to say this, I really feel as if we are saying the same things (or at least very close) My goal is to recognize, respect and show kindness to all people. However, I don’t feel as if approving of or believing in the way they live their life is required to do any of those things.
To answer your question; What does it mean to not accept a trans or gay person? I will go back to the definition of acceptance. It means that one does not agree with or believe in the life they live.
What does it mean to tolerate a trans or gay person? To recognize the life they live and to respect that life.
I hope I have been able to write this in such a way that my heart and attitude are apparent.
I think we may be a bit further apart than it might seem.
People do put labels on themselves – it’s how we look for like minded people, how we find allies; how we let people know what kind of work we do. When a parent who doesn’t know me sees me at a meeting about her child, I introduce myself “I’m the school psychologist”. In turn we get labeled by others. If someone asks me what kind of work I do, or how I’m planning to spend my summer, I either get labeled or label myself. It’s natural.
Most of our “labels” are not mutually exclusive. I am Jewish and I am an atheist. Believing in G_d is not necessary to be Jewish, although a belief in G_d is a part of many Jewish people’s lives. There are also gay people who are Christian. These are not mutually exclusive categories, and I think much mischief comes from beliefs that they are mutually exclusive. It’s not Gays vs Christians. There are gay Christians and non-gay Christians.
I can “accept” my G_d-believing co-congregants, and they can “accept” me. What can possibly be the alternative? There is no one that I cannot “accept”. If I don’t “accept” someone, does that mean I don’t accept their existence? You know, there are people who don’t accept the existence of trans people, who don’t accept that trans people should exist.
I can “tolerate” my G_d-believing co-congregants’ beliefs, but I am sure they hope for more, and they get it). “Tolerate” would mean I can breathe the same air without becoming ill.
I “respect” their beliefs, which doesn’t mean I “accept” the same beliefs – it just means I understand them, understand the work involving in living those beliefs, and consider them better human beings for it. It doesn’t mean I “accept” their beliefs as my own. It also doesn’t mean I “disagree” with their beliefs. I understand their belief is their reality. It also doesn’t mean that I “approve” or “disapprove” their beliefs. Belief in G_d is such a personal thing I couldn’t presume to “disagree” with their beliefs, let alone presume to “approve” them.
No one needs to “approve” of who we are.
I am at the moment fighting a small battle with the Social Security Administration for the widow’s benefit from my spouse’s recent death. We were married for 34 years – married in a Jewish service as an opposite sex couple, we were a same-sex couple at the time of her death. Because someone in the George W. administration did not approve of our kind, I may be found to be an “illegitimate” beneficiary. This is in spite of my own congregation still seeing us as married.
…and I have no connection with the other Evan who posted on here. Just a coincidence.
I believe that Homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t hate homosexuals, nor do I treat them any differently from heterosexuals. When asked about my vote on homosexual marriages I reply that while I don’t mean to control, I vote against it because I believe that marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman.
So with this knowledge, how should I be labeled? I’ve been labeled intolerant, hateful and unaccepting; but which of these is right, if any?
I would probably say unaccepting and intolerant, but I don’t know about hateful. I don’t know you and don’t know if there is hatred behind your desire to relegate same-sex couples to second-class citizenship. I’m not sure what is behind your feeling that gay and lesbian people are not equal to straight people, so I personally would withhold judgment on the hateful part without further information.