){kind=logo}
){kind=icon}
){kind=logo}
){kind=icon}
Tolerance is one thing; recognizing the right of those who are different to live in peace is another. We need the latter.
Tolerance has been a critical value in the fight for the rights of the LGBTQ community. Many of us over 30 remember when there was legal discrimination against members of a company for transitioning, that homosexual people could be attacked or killed with impunity, repressed, and assaulted by the police. The latter type of legitimized aggression sparked the movement that has brought the LGBTQ community the relief of tolerance and the hope for acceptance.
The social changes brought about by this movement are invaluable. They have allowed millions of diverse people to live with legal protections and have a safe presence in private, public, and workspaces. Pride Month is also about remembering and appreciating these milestones. However, while these achievements are precious, most of them were consolidated decades ago. It is necessary to transcend to a higher phase of progress; tolerance is insufficient, and acceptance is overdue.
Both terms are interchangeable for many, especially the heteronormative public, meaning almost the same thing. For those who live being tolerated, the difference is enormous. Tolerance starts from the idea of coexisting with whom we disagree and do not like. It does not challenge us to change anything about our views. It only requires a capacity for endurance of what’s different, but not acceptance. The latter has enormous ramifications concerning the power dynamics between those who tolerate and those who are tolerated. To explain this thoroughly, we must begin with simple notions.
Coexisting 101
Tolerance is not a negative value in itself; it is pretty helpful to resist adverse situations, but it does not help us define rules of coexistence with people who are different. Pediaa.com, a site/blog dedicated to explaining concepts and their differences, offers a graph that clarifies both values.
According to Hasa, a site collaborator, tolerance is the willingness to admit the existence of opinions contrary to ours. Acceptance is the recognition of an idea that, in the first instance, does not fit with our way of thinking but that we adopt without protest, without trying to change or eliminate it. The main point here is that we are talking about tolerating or accepting people, not ideas, that makes all the difference.
The Real Effect of Being Tolerated
In the context of people, tolerance becomes complicated. It was a solution for a time when the existence of LGBTQ people was not even validated, but today it falls short. The tolerant position is very comfortable. You do not have to admit recognition, agreement, or acceptance. You only have to endure the existence of people of different orientations and identities. For those who exercise tolerance, it is an easy exercise of power.
“The idea of tolerance has paternalistic connotations. Tolerance is given by a superior person to an inferior one, who receives the favor of being tolerated. It is not a relationship among equals,” explains Deva Mar Escobedo, a journalism student at the Complutense University of Madrid, in an article for the online news source El Salto.
The tolerant perspective almost always belongs to the dominant social group. Their vision becomes the indisputably correct one, which merely allows the existence of counterpoints that are validated by their criteria. Under the tolerance scheme, the tolerator can decide how important the opinions and needs of the person being tolerated are. They may choose not to listen, dismiss, or ask the tolerated to be quiet to avoid a scandal or trigger a conflict, putting the responsibility and burden of said incidents on them. From their position of power, the dominant social groups are the ones who determine and regulate what is “normal” or “right.” They are “the champions of reality,” to put it simply, and the people who do not conform to that normality are “the challengers.”
Confrontation in such a dynamic is inevitable; unless the tolerated person learns to live under this imbalance, the consequences of this compromise can be profound and indelible. Even if tolerance has helped many LGBTQ people keep their jobs, living arrangements, and families, it still comes with a high personal cost. “Living someplace that is merely tolerant without acceptance is like existence within a sensory deprivation chamber. It won’t directly kill you, but it exacts a toll.” Brynn Tannehill, a spearhead of activism for the trans community, essayist, and member of the Trans United Fund sums up in just two lines the experience of tolerance from the perspective of those who are subjected to it. Once this idea has landed, can we understand why tolerance does not work? Why is it easy to enjoy life when we tolerate but struggle when we are the ones tolerated? After exposing the pains and problems of tolerance, we recognize that acceptance is an ethical imperative.
People outside the hetero norm exist; “tolerance” is not applicable because they will continue to exist regardless of whether or not heteronormative people agree with them. Tolerance is not constructive. What is urgent is the basic humanity to understand that diverse identities and orientations are as valid and harmless as heteronormative ones. This is what acceptance means. To truly exercise it, we need to stop saying: “I can live with the fact that this person is different.” and start saying: “I am ok with that.”
Translation by Daniel Wetta
Disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The viewpoints expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints, and official policies of Tecnológico de Monterrey.
){kind=icon}
){kind=icon}
This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 
)