Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

This is something which has been going around. I'm not a published writer and I don't know if anyone who might be reading this is, but I think this is important and maybe posting about it will help in some way. So, here is a substantial quote from a post by Charles Stross:

Turning to a different aspect of communications technology, I'd like to pass on a note from Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) (who describe themselves as "a not for profit non-governmental organization that searches for better outcomes, including new solutions, to the management of knowledge resources, as is described in http://www.keionline.org.")

We are distributing a letter (in English and Spanish) to writers, journalists and authors who support the World Blind Union WIPO treaty proposal to improve access to books in formats accessible to people who are blind, visual impaired or have other disabilities.
The World Blind Union has been for years requesting a new international legal framework that will allow them to produce and share accessible formats of books and other written material.

The World Blind Union treaty proposal, formally endorsed by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay is supported by nearly all developing countries and by disabilities and consumer organizations but the position that developed countries, like the European governments and United States, will take next week is still unclear.

Why is it urgent: Next week the treaty proposal is going to be discussed at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva. This is the website for the WIPO meeting.

A fact Sheet that explains the treaty proposal is available here (PDF).

They're looking for writers and asking them to sign the petition: interested parties should contact Judit Rius at judit.rius(at)keionline.org. My take on it is that this is an unequivocally good cause, and I'll be signing KEI's letter. One of the big problems with electronic media and DRM is that they tend to lock the visually handicapped out; for example, a common restriction on ebooks is to disable the "read aloud" feature offered by Kindle and other readers. Such behaviour is discriminatory and (in some jurisdictions) illegal, but it's going to be hard to prevent it spreading without something like this proposed treaty.

Quoting seemed the most effective way to communicate this information. I wanted not to misrepresent anything.

Today has been the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Likely not still that day here, by the time I finish writing this, but it will be elsewhere still. That day set aside for remembering all the people who over the past and previous years were murdered because of cissexist bigotry, for being trans.

The numbers for this year were a bit tricky to access, being in a Word document, but according to the website this year 101 163 people were killed for that particular who they are. If trend from past years hold true (and what I have read elsewhere indicates this is so), the majority of those murdered were trans women of colour. Not white trans women, and not trans men. A lot of the time trans people who are murdered are assumed and portrayed as having been sex workers, whether they were or not, and because of the widespread stigma applied to sex workers this provides cis authorities further disincentives to take these crimes seriously.

A lot of the time people guilty of these murders, if they are charged, use what is called the 'trans panic' defence. Rather than claiming innocence they instead claim the murder of trans people is justified because of how horrifying and disgusting they find it to be knowing a trans person. This gets accepted as valid in court far too readily, even though it is often untrue or very unlikely to be true that the murder was unaware of the person ey killed being trans prior to the act of killing. It tends, rather, to be that "I found out she was trans so I killed her[1]" is seen by many as a fair and logical train of thought. Even people who say the murder was wrong often say the murdered trans person was also wrong not to walk around wearing a sign saying "Trans", as if that would have made eir life so much easier to live, or would be a reasonable standard to require of someone so as not to be murdered.

[1] Actually they don't normally use gendered pronouns. Normally they describe the person they killed as 'it'.

I was thinking, for writing something for this day, about why these murders happen and why they are predominantly of women. The conclusion I came to was a combination of transphobia, homophobia and sexism.

The mere act of being visibly a woman, presenting as female, is seen by many men as a sexual act. An invitation. This is why a lot of men feel entitled to behave aggressively sexual toward women who are not welcoming of this behaviour - because being a woman is itself considered a sexual invitation or come-on.

It is because of transphobia that the genders of trans people are regarded as invalid where the genders of cis people are treated as real. Thus, trans women are considered 'really men' and trans men are considered 'really women'.

When we combine this with cultural homophobia and macho sexism that sees violence as a valid, even imperative means for men to enforce perceptions of their masculinity and 'defend' it from the threat supposedly posed by the existence of queer people and other ways of doing gender, well...

Because a woman in public is by default seen as engaging sexually with all the men around her, whether she wants to or not, and because a trans woman recognised as a trans woman is seen as being 'really a man', the mere existence of trans women is seen as a threat to the sexuality and identity of heterosexual cis men, one to which violence is often regarded as a justifiable or at least understandable response.

Of course this does not explain why white women are less likely to be murdered in this way than other women because my thought process did not include race until after the fact. I have seen however several other writers express that the lives of women of colour are regarded as less valuable than the lives of white women, just as the lives of trans women are regarded as less valuable than the lives of cis women which I can readily believe. It would make sense that the intersection of these two identities would combine to a far higher murder rate as people might believe either they could especially get away with the killing of a trans woman of colour, or that trans women of colour are especially unworthy of life.

Clearly, this needs to change.

Filter: disappointed

Accommodation and accessibility are among those mostly unnoticed things. When they are brought to our attention our response might be approving. It might be a scowling grumbling about expense, inconvenience and 'whining'. Might be something else, probably - humans are varied, though sometimes they seem distressingly monotonous.

Perhaps that is a poor preface. I have been thinking about accessibility and the difficulty that is had, the resistance to introducing new accessibility measures and having them implemented and maintained, especially widely. There is a bit of grim amusement in my consideration of that, lately, because really we worked so did so well on some accessibility so far, enough for maybe most of us, but there is so much resistance to going any further with it.

A lot of us with visual impairments have access to corrective lenses. Not all of us; I'd be shocked if easy quality glasses access weren't mainly the domain of middle class and up citizens of nations that call themselves 1st World. We make doors that most of us can reach and open easily. Reaching elevated locations we often put in stairs and expect them to be sized for our common feet and gait. Inside we add illumination, though not all of us need it.

Our signs are displayed in EM frequencies we can see; we use colours we can clearly differentiate as markers. We use auditory frequencies we can hear. We make our clothes out of materials which do not irritate our skin. We provide ourselves with foods which do not make ourselves sick or kill us. We refrain from filling our environments with pervasive, irritating sounds. We do not decorate with odours like onions or faecal matter because these produce adverse reactions in us. We don't use strobe lighting in work environments and consider it a problem to fix when we cannot accurately perceive our environment because of how it is structured. When we build structures we size them so that most of us can get around easily inside and outside, with enough room that we don't become stuck or unable to proceed.

It is a very long list. I doubt I have been anywhere near comprehensive and a lot of people could probably find glaring omissions in what I managed to come up with. The point being aimed at is that humans put a lot of effort into making their environment accessible to a subset of themselves. Comprehensively enough and long enough that most don't realise that a lot of why people with disabilities can have difficulty getting around and accessing things it is because they weren't included among those people initially built their world to suit and now when they point it out and say they want it changed, many see it as an extra imposition instead of a continuation of the work and attitudes that went into making navigating the world so easy for them.

Accessibility isn't something extra. It is the demand an incomplete work be continued.

Last night watching Eureka one of the guest characters was supposedly Australian, except his accent was awfully all over the place. Left us wondering why they didn't just cast an Australian for the role. That, and an earlier episode of Frasier reminding that the trend in casting for trans women is cis men for laughs, cis women for pity, gave renewed impetus to write this intended post.

There is a lot of under-representation in our fiction, and in AV fiction often when a member of a marginalised group is depicted the part will be played by a member of a dominant group. Women are usually no longer played by men, although roles are limited. People of colour are usually no longer played by white people (but still too often), although roles are limited and frequent opportunities are taken to white-wash works and replace characters of colour with white characters. Trans characters are nearly always played by cis actors - almost always a trans woman is depicted and if she is an object of humour or ridicule she is played by a cis man; if we are supposed to feel sympathy for her she is played by a cis woman. Disabled characters are played by abled actors faking a disability in most cases.

Consequently many people advocate for better representation, like the outcry against the Avatar movie being transformed from one inhabited by Asian characters into one where a small band of white heroes saves the world (the one being directed by M. Night Shyamalan, not the one by James Cameron, which looks to be Super Space Colonialism anyway), or that people with disabilities and trans people should be cast to play the roles which represent them. I've also seen some backlash against this from among the people in question. At least wert trans people playing trans roles, people have argued that if we have that happening the actors will get typecast as 'trans actors' and their careers will be stalled due to being restricted to trans roles in an industry where there nearly are no trans roles. I would be unsurprised if there were similar protests elsewhere.

I don't think that should be the case though. Would it actually happen? I suppose it might, although given the current situation where cis actors play cis roles and cis actors play trans roles, and so on, it still seems like an improvement over no representation.

What I would like to see, in addition to more representative casting for existing roles is more diverse casting for roles which are not specifically marked as 'minority parts'. I am not inclined to agree that, for example, the aspirational goal for trans actors should be to play cis roles. I don't see any problem with such casting, but nor do I see a reason roles shouldn't accommodate the actors cast for them. It happens a lot in response to protests against things like white-washing of characters of colour, so why not turn it around?

That is, they tend to say "This character doesn't need to be Asian (or disabled, or female, or whatever), the story has universal appeal, so why can't ey be played by a white man?". (and again, often when people are arguing for the universality of a character or story's appeal seems to be when they are reaching for a straight, white, etc. man to represent this universality) So why not the other way round? We don't call straight men typecast if they only play straight men. Nor white men, nor abled men, nor cis men... but most roles are written for them. Unless the story actually depends on the character being one of those things, what would be wrong with casting someone else and tweaking the role to fit? Explicitly not meant to be about turning characters into gimmicks, because being not a straight white abled cis man isn't actually a gimmick, it's being also a normal kind of person who happens to not be that kind, and there's plenty of variety everywhere. Very rarely does the character actually need to be that man, so it is suspicious ey usually is.

Since I don't believe any group of people other than 'talented and / or skilled actors' has a monopoly on better acting ability than others, this leaves the conclusion that there are other factors than 'ability to play roles' involved in why most people we see in films and television aren't women, a third of them don't have disabilities, less than one in ten is other than straight, or why most of all of these people are white. If we were casting strictly to acting ability and weren't so biased in our conceptualisations of what people ordinarily are, I think our working actor demographics would be very different.

And of course, we aren't yet in a position where changing things in the other direction would be fair. It is after all the problem at hand.

To describe treatment of a person as reprehensible, often we liken it to accepted ways of treating children. When we think a person's behaviour needs to be more controlled, we liken em to a child.

Because I think how we regard and behave toward children culturally is itself reprehensible I try not to compare others to children in order to dismiss or degrade them. I try not to use comparisons such as 'treated like a child' unless I am also making these points, because I think unexamined, uncomplicated use of those references reinforces attitudes that such treatment is appropriate for children and only wrong when applied to older people.

Obama lifts the ban on US aid money going to any organisation that provides abortions and the US House of Representatives goes and passes a similar ban on their own people.

It's absurd. Federal money banned from paying for a particular class of medical procedures. Why? It's not illegal, so why is a government being barring itself from funding legal medical procedures? Because a subset of the population has a religious prejudice against it, seems like mainly. Which isn't a very secular way to run a government. Unfair too; no government is making laws based on my religious beliefs, or even- well.

How come? we would ask. How come laws are made on the basis of the views of some sects of a religion but not the views of others? Especially the ones which outlaw personal choices, ones we would expect people who hold a belief in their immorality not to choose.

If this becomes law the lives of many people, particularly poor women and children, will be materially disadvantaged compared to if this does not become law. The gain, meanwhile, is that members of some Christian sects can feel pleased others are being forced to live by their morality, while members of other Christian sects will be frustrated that their morality has been prohibited.

Their are anti-choice non-religious atheists and members of other religions, but let's not pretend this was done to suit their desires.

[Link up top, very worth reading. Post content is different to what I wrote here]

Filter: disappointed

I have seen it happen often enough to regard it as a pattern.

People who characterise themselves as parents of autistic children, who appear to regard autism as a debilitating disease to be cured, or a form of poisoning to be cleansed of. They say autistic self-advocates, people who advocate for neurodiversity, they characterise those people as "high-functioning Asperger's" who get through life fine and don't need other than the usual assistance everyone gets, characterised as wanting to trumpet themselves splendid untroubled individuals equal or superior to the rest of humanity. They say that these advocates, in their drive to present themselves as just fine are stomping over the parents' children getting access to services, treatment and cures all as part of their selfish self-aggrandisement.

What do they say? They say wrong, for one. Many autistic advocates are not those who would be diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. Many are not verbal, or not always. Many need carers or some similar arrangement. Many, as they have pointed out, are no different in diagnostic status and outward appearance from the children these parents say they are speaking for. So they're not right, when they say those things.

What do they say? They characterise people who do or could have a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome as people who are just fine. People who are utterly unconnected from 'real autism' and who do not experience any problems worth calling 'serious'.

So what they do, in order to protect their children from these people who are advocating that their children (as a subset of neurodiverse people) deserve consideration, access, recognition as valid people, support and all those nifty things, what they do is contribute to a discourse and public atmosphere which makes it harder for people to gain access to support or being taken seriously.

In trying to say "Stop telling me chelating (and other 'treatments') is useless, stop telling me my child is fine and does not need to be un-broken" they end up saying "Shut up. You don't even need or want access / services / accommodation, you have no right to an opinion or to be taken seriously about issues that affect you."

I've written and deleted a lot of concluding paragraphs for this post, mainly because I found all the constructions I attempted to be suggestive that one of those expressions is more or less of a problem than the other. Then I noticed my "In trying to say [...] they end up saying [...]" construction could be read also as implying a progression of reprehensibility. This paragraph is for explicitly disclaiming that meaning.

Filter: sad

Two sorts of things which have been bugging that I think are probably meant to be pro-women.

1) Sitcoms, where a male character expresses something sexist in the presence of women, either who gets mad at him or who the presentation of the show promises will 'get even' with him off-screen. A lot of the time it looks like not 'sexism is bad, don't be sexist' but instead 'everyone knows this but don't say it in front of women because they don't like it' with a side of 'sexism is okay so long as there is comeuppance'.

This dynamic tends to feed the idea that men are socially disadvantaged relative to men because women hold power over them primarily in the form of controlling access to sex (as if sexual assault and rape were not prevalent, and as if these shows do not commonly depict men harassing and pressuring women into unwanted sex and humorous in an 'it's funny because it's true' sense), but also depicting women as generally bossy, controlling and otherwise humorously abusive toward men - showing a social fiction where men are obliged not to express what they consider right and natural and true in the presence of women because women (in this imaginary world) dominate society via various channels of interpersonal coercion.

Despite sending the superficial message of 'don't express sexism', I don't think this is a very feminist depiction.

2) Webcomics, mostly fantasy webcomics in my experience, which seem to be attempting to establish feminist credibility by having characters encounter a bunch of men acting in a strongly misogynistic, derisive way and then having them shown up / beat up / whatever by the heroic leads, often women.

Really, if someone wants to make a feminist / pro-feminist fantasy webcomic I would rather see an example of a world in which sexism is not a problem than one in which our heroes keep beating up the occasional gang of louts who think they're hopeless. As much as it can be satisfying to see expressed sexism flung back in someone's face, I really want to see more examples of worlds where sexism isn't even a problem people have to deal with. Especially since a lot of the time these happenings feel to me, not insincere, but as if these are staged events to establish for us that either our leads are truly virtuous because they won't stand for sexism or, if women, to clarify that they are indeed Strong Female Characters.

It bugs me, and I am having difficulty expressing why. Maybe because when this happens with female characters the only reason they succeed at standing up to the Token Sexist Jerks is because they have some kind of elite ability, and the way the confrontation is framed any random woman would have been cowed or worse - 'confronting sexism is for heroic or elite women only' message. Maybe because I come away with the feeling authors who do this think all sexism is of the overt sort and the way to confront it is by having a bigger stick. Maybe because I get frustrated that so often it seems people can't imagine the idea of a society which lacks sexism, racism, ablism, queerphobia, etc. and thus the only way to have a remotely humanist sort of work apparently is with these staged, stark black hat - white hat confrontations.

Yes, this one gets crossposted to my journal and feminist_rage.

Filter: annoyed

Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

Recently the organisation Autism Speaks released another video. You can see it by following this link here. A transcription of the audio can be read here. This is the outcome of "[a] press release [from August that] encouraged families to submit videos of autistic individuals for a PSA that would "shine a bright spotlight" on autism."

Naturally I and a whole lot of other people take issue with this supposed public service announcement[1]. It wouldn't be fair, though, to attribute the views expressed in that video to all members of families of autistic people, nor even necessarily to all people who contributed footage to the final product. abfh|Whose Planet Is It Anyway? points out that people have felt deceived by this request and the results:

Would the contributors to the "I Am Autism" video have agreed to participate if Autism Speaks had admitted at the outset that it was planning to demonize autistic kids as embarrassing burdens who destroy their parents' marriages and dreams?

Well, at least one parent who posted a comment on the video's YouTube page, under the name BarrysDaughter, made it quite plain that she felt deceived by Autism Speaks' request for video contributions from parents. She wrote:

"I do have 2 autistic children and a husband on the spectrum. When they first suggested a video I was eager to send them one till they outlined what they wanted.

My children and husband don't want or need to be CURED what they do want is people to treat them the same as anyone else, stop the bullying and put more staff in schools to support them…"

My problems with the video. It is not addressed to autistic people. Indeed, the request for videos and the result of this request, despite being purpotedly for an autistic advocacy organisation, does not acknowledge the existence of autistic people. They don't talk to autistic people, they talk to the families of autistic people. They don't acknowledge that autistic people may have desires, or acknowledge anything as being a problem for autistic people which those people might want something done about. No, they address the desires of families of autistic people, they talk about what families of autistic people want for their own benefit, they talk about the suffering of people who associate with autistic people, they describe the autistic community as 'people who know autistic people'.

There is a tremendous failure of empathy on display in their selfish wish to eradicate autism from existence. Do not pretend they speak only of those to whom terms like 'low-functioning' or 'severe' are applied when they use words like

"I work faster than pediatric AIDS, cancer, and diabetes combined. And if you are happily married, I will make sure that your marriage fails. Your money will fall into my hands, and I will bankrupt you for my own self-gain. I don't sleep, so I make sure you don't either. I will make it virtually impossible for your family to easily attend a temple, a birthday party, a public park, without a struggle, without embarrassment, without pain. You have no cure for me."

Is there any moderation in that? Any room for them to say "Ah, but we do not mean you who are 'high-functioning'? (by which is meant "Your life is easy, you have no problems and no relevance to this subject, so be silent")" It is a plain statement of what Autism Speaks considers autism to be - a debilitating and horrific condition which must be eradicated. No acknowledgement of the voices of autistic people. Rather, those are described as stolen away, so that others can pretend to know what these voiceless unfortunates want and claim desires in their name.

What they are doing, is not helping. Help would be to reduce the stigma of autism. Help would be to not portray it as some malevolent force which steals otherwise 'normal' children and hides them behind a monstrous facade. Help would be not be not comparing autism to a fatal illness. Help would be acknowledging the existence of autistic adults. Help would be pushing for the ready availability of accommodations that will aid autistic people and others with disabilities. Help would be publicly speaking out against the vast number of sham 'cures' which do nothing, or worse, so that people do not go bankrupt on the false hope of rescuing their family from the hell you have convinced them autism dooms them to. Help would be supporting health care reform so people do not have to worry about going bankrupt for medical reasons. Help would be listening to autistic people instead of speaking over them.

Not all of those things are entirely absent from their website on inspection, but they have a long way to go if they ever want to be a resource and organisation for the benefit of autistic people. Right now they look more like an organisation focused on eugenics to eradicate a segment of the population. I'm sure they don't see it that way. I expect they believe the best outcome for autistic people would be to cease being autistic and eventually cease being born, instead of whatever each autistic person considers eir personal preferred outcome. Accommodation and support I think benefits everyone, while the current state of Autism Speaks' rhetoric does not.

Further responses to this video and the organisation behind it can be found here: http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2009/09/solidarity.html

[1] Also annoyed by people who leap on the statement that among faith, technology, prayer, herbs and genetic studies people will also fight autism with voodoo, as something outrageous. Though I would not be surprised to learn either that this was included as an example of desperation, still voodoo despite being a religion associated with black people rather than white is not any more or less silly a thing to call on than, say, Christianity.

Originally published at a denizen's entertainment. You can comment here or there.

Last week I ran into a post that made me pretty angry. It was this post, Race, Gender, and the Oppressive Public Gaze. No, not the bit about the appalling attitudes and actions of the IAAF, the media, and the public toward Caster Semenya and intersex people (which I have not previously written publicly on, but short form: outrageous that she'd be singled out for testing on the basis of winning a race and not looking 'sufficiently feminine' while doing so, plausibly racist that she was so singled out when black women are already made to suffer for not conforming to white standards of beauty, outrageous that the media would refer to her as a 'hermaphrodite' in defiance of their own style guides, painfully ignorant and outright damaging to many, especially Semenya herself who as the linked article states has been placed on suicide watch, that when news of her reputedly intersex biology was leaked to media outlets before she herself was informed, people considered this reason to degender her, call her 'he' and accuse her of cheating even though these days an abnormally well-suited biology seems almost a prerequisite to excellence in world sports, without raising such a storm of ignorance and horrid behaviour in cases that don't concern women and race). No, I had grown accustomed to be disgusted at the behaviour of people around this topic.

It was the middle section that outraged me anew, by referring to what from timing and other details I inferred was this posting in the community , the handling of which had already given me cause for much infuriated anger.

Let us get some things straight. No one has the right to know details of my body, or how it functions, or how I have sex, or what kind(s) of sex I enjoy, unless I choose to give them that information. This is a matter of privacy and personal autonomy. Generally (I am not sure if generally is true, but let's say it is for the sake of rhetoric) people will respect the expressed boundaries of others, and by default respect also the boundaries their social context leads them to believe are commonly in place, although there are some people who take pleasure in violating the boundaries of others as a 'joke' (or for other reasons).

Which leads to another thing. Generally marginalised people are Othered, are treated as something fascinating and alien and not quite regarded by those socially privileged over them as being as fully nuanced and human as those privileged over them regard their own class, in most cases without careful thought and work. Generally, the socially expected default boundaries are weakened or less regarded in the case of marginalised classes of people, as seen with men hollering out sexual remarks to women generally, or white people wanting to touch the hair of black women specifically. It might be because in the milieu they grew up they were trained to regard the boundaries of some sets of people as less than their own, or it might be that their privileged situation leads their curiosity to override restraints behaviour they might otherwise recognise as intrusive and likely unwelcome, because they have the luxury of not considering the situation. Or other reasons I might not have considered.

All this, and disproportion of effect. When you have some noticeable variance from those in power in the wider society you inhabit it makes sense they would be curious about it. Especially when you have been Othered by this society, information about you obscured or unavailable. Especially when you are a relative minority to them, and thus again a novelty to their eyes. Especially again when you are marginalised relative to them, and they are accustomed to seeing your boundaries weaker than theirs, to be overrun without care, or treated as less credible and serious entirely in your expressions of yourself. And because you are yourself, and they are many, what seems to them like a harmless single encounter may be to you an endless feeling grinding intrusion.

So, curiousity is natural, and many in privileged situations would be inclined to shrug it off, based on their own not unpleasant experiences of being its subject. But for someone who occupies a marginalised position in the society they inhabit, they are at particular risk of being subjected to unwanted intrusions and incessant questioning, and generally it is a sign of oppression that people would behave as though they are entitled to details of a person's existence, that they would invade eir individual or collective space to demand answers and be disinclined to respect refusals, or to take under consideration that those they question are likely often subject to this and likely do not want to be subject to it again.

If someone is a member of a marginalised group, it is more likely rude to ask em details of eir existence than it is to ask members of non-marginalised groups about theirs. Boundaries should be drawn wider, not weaker or smaller, and anyone who seeks information from and / or about them ought take much greater care to be respectful of boundaries, which generally means "do not approach them specifically unless you know for yourself the person in question is willing to entertain your request (and friendship is not a guarantee of this - to presume it is would often be a swift way of losing that friendship)", "do not approach them in their own communities or spaces unless those spaces have been established for the purpose of educating outsiders". Or, more simply: If you seek information from or concerning marginalised peoples, particularly about any aspect of their personal lives or bodies, do so only from sources which have been explicitly established as venues for seeking such information. Otherwise it is likely you will be treading on the boundaries of people whose boundaries are frequently trodden on, frequently betrayed, frequently ignored.

All that said, why then am I angry with karnythia concerning eir post linked at the beginning of this one? Because is a writers' information community. Its purpose is for writers who have not been able to find information for their stories elsewhere to seek advice and resources from other members of the community. It is not specifically a trans space, nor specifically a space for any marginalised class of people unless you count writers, which I certainly do not. The poster of the question in question did not so far as we know approach any specific trans person and demand information about or access to eir genitals. Ey did not do this with a trans community or safer space. Ey made a request, in a community purposed for the exchange of information, that if anyone were willing and able to help em produce an accurate and respectful portrayal of a trans man (specifically the one who was a character in eir story) in a sexual scene. No one was hounded or intruded upon by this, and no one was obligated to answer, but if anyone were able and willing to answer that question, to provide advice on an accurate and respectful portrayal, the option was there.

Instead we got a storm of outrage. People saying, effectively, no cis person should ever write about a trans character, they should never, ever request information on how to do so better, that there is no context (other than being, we assume, a trans person seeking information to aid in orienting eir life) in which seeking information about trans people can be anything other than offensive and wrong. People demanding to know why it is necessary for that character to be trans, when as far as I am concerned a big problem is that marginalised persons do not exist in stories unless somehow 'justified' in ways others are not, and that this is a problem which contributes to Othering, ignorance, prejudice and stereotyping which can be addressed in part by precisely the sort of behaviour the original poster has been engaged in. There was some problematic language in the original post (now crossed out and replaced) which was eventually pointed out and explained - those previously attempting to shut down the subject they had inserted themselves into then thanking the person who explained this for doing what they had apparently showed up in order to not do.

This then is continued in karnythia's post. What was a request for information and advice in an open forum intended for that purpose on how to construct a respectful portrayal, if indeed the connection I made between the two postings is a correct one, gets framed as a personal intrusion. The message we are given is it is not okay for a person in a privileged position to seek this information, ever, for any reason, and it is even less okay for them to ever pose that as an active question. We are told that is prurience and the message gleaned from this post and much of the community response is that this information should simply be unavailable concerning marginalised persons.

If this could be considered in aggregate 'the activist position' then I cannot in good conscience assent. I think it an anti-intellectual, simplistic and ultimately harmful position to take. As I said above, I think it is a problem, endemic in the society I am familiar with, that people especially fail to recognise or respect the personal boundaries of marginalised people. I think, because of this tendency, it is moral, polite and pragmatic to take extra care not to transgress those boundaries. As a rule, neither individuals nor communities should be solicited or imposed upon for information by outsiders - the appropriate venues would typically be intentionally informational resources, not people who are already likely frequently put upon by such unwelcome demands.

This does mean I consider the problem in question neither the existence of information about marginalised people, nor that others might have interest in that information. Rather, the problem lies in how this plays out under the various dynamics of privilege / marginalisation which leads typically to intrusive enquiries running roughshod over boundaries. Merely to ask the question or seek the information is not in itself an act of oppression. Behaving as if it is, I think, contributes to the problems of invisibility, ignorance and poor representation I oppose. So reading that I got angry.

Filter: annoyed

All those people who feel it important to respond to accounts of trans people existing. To talk about how people should not or should not be allowed to alter their gendered or sexed presentation, to say it is a pointless superficiality, or the 'proper' solution is counselling and whatever else convinces to be happy with things as is, to say trans people are a temporary social aberration who will not exist in coming years, to say there is truly no way for a person to have an innate sense of gender or sex...

All these people I invite to, as the saying goes, 'put their money where their mouth is'. I implore them, please, if to transition is such an irrelevant, pointless, insignificant indulgment of those who don't deserve freedom or autonomy, then let us see them demonstrate how superficial transition is. Let us see them do the transition thing, clothing, hormones, surgery, and show us in statistically significant numbers how unimportant gendered presentation and sexed bodies are to people.

If it doesn't mean anything, if it doesn't change anything, if it doesn't matter, then why not join in? If you are right, it won't bother you a bit.

Filter: annoyed

This whitewashing thing, taking stories written by, featuring or about people of colour and twisting them, recasting so at minimum the heroes are replaced with white people and at maximum... well.

It is a pretty pervasive and appalling practice -- the link above is by no means exhaustive.

There are a couple of reasons commonly given to justify these practices. One is to claim it is not the fault of the company producing the work, they are merely doing what sells. Perhaps, but to say "We do this because racism is profitable" is far from what I would consider a laudable business practice, and it doesn't much help the argument that proper capitalism* would eschew oppression because it is economically disadvantageous, either.

Another is to say race doesn't matter, at least to them. Perhaps so, but if it really is the case then why is there a trend to recasting people of colour as white and not so much the other direction? Why change the settings of stories to be white and Anglo if this doesn't matter? And if it matters so little to the people making these things, then why not cater to the people for whom it does matter by leaving the stories, characters, settings, etc. intact? Really, if people don't care about race, then why keep replacing people of colour with white people?

When I made recent post of neurotypical privilege and checklist I half-expected some criticism which did not show... so now we attempt a little talk about, though of small and certain nature, those concerns we'd noted in reading and expected to arise.

One being in several parts of list, attempting distancing from mental illness. The thought arisen in noticing, that such distancing could take the form of, or could be seen as, contributing to stigmatisation of mental illness itself. We felt not such as actual perception, yet know not if one more wise in sight might yet discern its traces.

To separate and unentangle neurodiversity from mental illness is, we think, a matter of accuracy of categorisation for the frames in which we live and operate. However, our moral perspective indicates that this disentanglement can be, but must not become an agent of stigmatisation of mental illness, of perpetuating problems faced by. Reasons for separation would be simply accuracy in description and approach, that the one is not an equivalent term for the other. Further thought on, brings to second point of noticing.

That this list has in places a noted focus on autism, whereas neurodiversity is not a term referencing only autism, but also other neurologies not presently recognised as 'normal'. That, also, potentially is a problem, and more immediately seen so than the other concern about mental illness.

That is, we noticed a potential for furthering stigmatisation of mental illness, and an actual case of focusing in some items on autism specifically when the checklist should not be so narrowly focused.

Mm. This post ended up being a bit truncated after being left to sit a while.

Filter: blah

Bev|Asperger Square 8, and others, have been constructing a rather excellent checklist of neurotypical privilege. It started off in an earlier post with a request for input, and has been discussed by Lindsay at Autist's Corner too - am very glad it has been, as otherwise would have forgotten to say anything publicly about this. Do take a look at Lindsay's post as well, as it carries a neat explication of how some of these factors intersect with other people.

Personal favourites, probably because they reference areas of especial personal relevance, include:

"The services that I need to survive not only already exist, but even if I use those services on a 24-hour basis, I will always be considered independent."

If my sexual orientation, gender identity, lifestyle preferences or beliefs are deemed nonstandard, others will not suggest that I am pretending, incorrect, jumping the gun or unable to really know such things about myself because I am neurotypical. They will not use my neurotypical status as a basis for defending intolerant remarks or beliefs about any of these identities.

pazi_ashfeather

Filter: anxious

This was originally composed as a response to a guest post at Questioning Transphobia:

Lately I am increasingly inclined to be critical of 'empathy' as applied to autistic and neurotypical* people. We might say autistic people lack empathy because they often do not have an intuitive understanding of people different from themselves, thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions. But then, it seems to me neurotypical people display an equal lack of empathy toward autistic people - they say autistic people do things for no reason, are 'mysteries', are 'unable to relate'.

So I suspect neurotypical people are not actually more empathetic than autistic people, but most people are like them and so they have a lot of opportunities to be accurate in attributing motive, feeling, desire, etc. who operate largely similarly to themselves. But they also happen to be the majority, or at least are in power and presented as default, so 'empathy' becomes 'ability to relate to and understand me'.

Actually, given the way people are treated across borders of culture, identity, physiology, am inclined to question whether empathy as it is claimed to be is much expressed at all.


*here used to mean 'not autistic', despite my interpretation of neurodiversity as being broader than merely autism; such an interpretation unfortunately leaves me without the clear and easy way to express this which neurotypical originally provided.

Filter: thoughtful

It appears the word 'cis' is now verboten at Pam's House Blend, because it offends at least one white cis gay man.

That constitutes the final straw for me so far as that site is concerned, as I have no patience for a discussion in which the official line is that trans and cis people ought not be regarded as on equal neutral footing because doing so offends cis people, just as I cut all interaction with The Bilerico Project and with Pandagon.

When an autistic person is pointing out the most prominent organisation claiming to advocate for autistic people contains none among its leadership and in fact has as its mission the eradication of autistic people from the population, the subject at hand is in fact not whether this was expressed in the best way. The subject at hand is actually a serious problem which would really be helped by people addressing.

Filter: enraged

Agreement maybe?

Filter: aggravated

Today, walking to class, I passed a person wearing a t-shirt which had stylised - as commonly seen on restroom signs - representations of a bride and groom on the front. The groom I saw had a sad expression, and large text on the shirt read "Game Over".

I am continually puzzled by how much (straight) men seem to hate women and marriage and relating to women. It astounds me that people could hate women so much and still claim they want to have heterogendered relationships.

Filter: confused

I should be linking to this post in the spirit of sharing uplifting humanist rhetoric.

Here's the text:

Dear America:

Some women have noticeable curves. Some women have less noticeable curves. All of them are real women.

Some men hew quite closely to traditional male stereotypes. Some men's gender expression is wildly different from traditional male stereotypes. All of them are real men.

Some men and women are attracted to the opposite sex. Some men and women are attracted to the same sex. Some men and women are attracted to both sexes, or neither. All of them are real men and women.

Some women and men were born the same gender they will die. Some women and men will transition to another gender during their lifetimes. Some will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral. All of them are real women and men.

Some women wear pink. Some women don't. All of them are real women.

Some men eat meat. Some men don't. All of them are real men.

Some Americans are brown. Some are white. Some are black. Some are some combination thereof. Some are Pacific Islanders. Some are indigenous people to this land. Some are from families that owned slaves. Some are from families that were enslaved. Some can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower. Some are recent immigrants. Some are religious. Some are not. Some believe in one god and some believe in many. Some Americans think George Bush is a great guy. Some Americans think Barack Obama is a great guy. Some Americans don't like either one of them. All of them are real Americans.

I am a real person. And so are you.

Authentically Yours,
Liss

Some women and men were born the same gender they will die. Some women and men will transition to another gender during their lifetimes. Some will opt to present themselves as gender-neutral. All of them are real women and men.

Filter: disappointed

Also a few minutes ago watching a different, non-Firefly related film, This Is England.

The subject being skinheads, it was a very tense and disquieting film with a little actual and a lot of implied or threatened violence. And this is a very short post, because what I really want to say is...

What struck me most about the film is how closely the skinhead rhetoric in the film matches mainstream media messages about race and immigration in at least Australia and I think probably other English speaking nations too. Stories on the news saying immigrants taking advantage of welfare, or talk of Asians taking jobs from hard-working 'Australians', colluding with each other in business. Or of Lebanese men as thugs and rapists... the only significant difference I saw between the skinheads portrayed in this film and mainstream media and culture is that the skinheads spoke with open intention of taking direct personal action about their rhetoric.

But the stories we tell ourselves in this white-dominated culture serve to suggest menace, danger from those who do not look like us. They refuse to learn our language. They take all the jobs, deal with each other, and keep the hard-working 'us' from catching a break in life. They are like animals, without respect for authority and after our women. These look like the stories people tell to justify and motivate racist violence because they are the stories people tell to justify and motivate racist violence. Or legislation.

These aren't secret thoughts whispered in hidden robed meetings. These are our cultural narratives, spoke openly, widely, absorbed. Default perspectives.

Two days ago, from when I begin typing these words, that was the declared Australia Day. I've not been enamoured of this day in celebration of white (our) colonisation, as I've not been of the United States' Thanksgiving, and felt no inclination to be celebrating it.

Prior to the day, suggestions of changing the date to something a bit less... blatantly colonialist were on my mind. It seemed a decent idea, though one I'd expect to get more resistance than support in the public or political eye.

And then we get this:

In the Sydney subrub of Manly, hundreds of youths draped in "Aussie pride" livery wore slogans declaring "f--k off we're full" as they smashed car windows and ran up the famous Corso targeting non-white shop keepers.

A 18-year-old Asian female in one of the cars was showered with shattered glass, giving her numerous cuts to her arms. She was treated on the scene by ambulance officers.

A taxi driven by a Sikh Indian was also targeted while an Asian shopkeeper was reportedly assaulted.

Groups of men jumped up on cars chanting race hate to the terrified passengers within, and were heard singing "tits out for the boys" at passing girls and yelled "lets go f--k with these Lebs".

What started as chants of "Aussie Aussie Aussie" at 1pm (AEDT) had in an hour had developed the potential to resemble Cronulla Beach in 2005.

"It was a mix of hoodlums who had obviously been drinking as well but, to me, there was also an underlying element of racism dressed up as nationalism," Dr Burridge, a senior lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney, said.

"When they were gathering on the [oceanside] beachfront, that's when they were screaming out 'If you're Aussie and you know it clap your hands' and 'If you're white and you know it clap your hands'."

Dr Burridge said an 18-year-old woman was traumatised when three teenagers jumped on the car she was in and smashed two windows.

The youths went on to jump over other cars and damage shop awnings as they ran through the area chanting "Aussie Aussie Aussie, oi oi oi" and "Aussie pride".

"When I was on the beach there was a bunch of them ... and these are teenagers -15, 16-year-olds - with slogans on their backs and postcodes with Penrith and Londonderry," she said.

But Commander Darcy from Manly Local Area Command said the group, most of whom were not from the area, were no worse than a rowdy "old cricket crowd".

"To suggest that there were racial overtones there is, I think, way over the top," he said.

"I personally gave them a good looking over, just assessing them. There was an intensity there that no doubt would be confronting to some but at that stage they hadn't crossed the threshold of criminality."

I don’t really think it’s appropriate to identify and celebrate another day, until we actually honestly address the problems that resulted from both colonisation and federation. The jingoistic blah that surrounds Australia Day offends me, but unless we partake in some genuinely honest self-appraisal as a nation, an alternative day will be just as bad.

Filter: disappointed

There's a case in Canada where it appears, absent testimony to bolster charges of abuse, a Mormon leader has been charged under a law banning polygamy instead.

lost_angelwings showed me some news about this last night, in which it was claimed prosecutors had been reluctant to invoke this law for fear it would get overturned when challenged. Naturally I found myself hoping it would be removed because of this trial, and hopefully these suspicions of abuse gotten to the bottom of more directly.

Unfortunately I did not realise just how strict the law in question is. Yet another obstacle forcing reconsideration of life plans, and more immediate reason to hope it is struck down.

Filter: disappointed

For a few months now at least I have seen several people decrying the idea of 'thought crime', that some thoughts, desires, ideas, etc. are wrong in and of themselves, immoral and perhaps deserving of some sort of punishment even if they lead to know action.

It makes sense to me. A thought in itself harms no one, is not going to lead to harm unless acted on (or inacted on). There is no need to police or outlaw thoughts because people are free to think whatever they like; our only concern is to prevent people's rights from being infringed on by others.

Except... it seems that only makes sense under particular moral or ethical systems. If I value things like personal freedom and rights, protection from harm by others. There are other systems under which thoughts can be considered effectively criminal, even punished.

If I believed some thoughts were damaging to the person thinking them and that people ought to be protected from themselves, it might make sense to take some action against that person's will (frex: suicidal thoughts).

If I believed some thoughts had a corrosive effect on the morality and self-control of the person thinking them, and that it is right or imperative to act to prevent possible harm then the idea of wrong or bad thoughts which need to be controlled or cured will make sense to me. Examples: rape fantasies or paedophilia.

If I believe some thoughts constitute immoral acts in themselves I might think that is a matter of community or personal responsibility. Possibly something for the person to deal with emself but possibly it would be a matter for the community to respond to, perhaps attempting to condition the person away from those thoughts, prohibiting their exercise or otherwise attempting to persuade em eir mind is wrong and needs to change. Example:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Filter: bored

Here we have something new (albeit less so than when I came across the news).

In short, the Victoria State Government has indicated an intention to approve a curriculum of secular humanist lessons for primary school students. These would run as an alternative to the existing religious education in schools. When I was in primary school, we were to choose a scripture class to attend or else go to non-scripture where we would sit quietly and perhaps draw until it was over. I think this is a good thing - a few years ago I actually considered doing something similar until I realised the school would probably not approve of an untrained, unaccredited person attempting to teach stuff to the non-scripture students. It would be a vast improvement to have people who actually know what they are doing and who have a coherent education plan offering education in humanist principles.

There seem to be two separate bodies in Victoria responsible for accrediting volunteer religious teachers. Access Ministries, which handles the Christian educators, and another handling everything else, World Conference of Religions for Peace. Access Ministries appears to be objecting to this move while World Conference of Religions for Peace appears to be in favour. Not especially pleased there was seen a need to defend humanism as a legitimate perspective to hold but ah well.

What has been interesting me is the claim from Access Ministries that this course should be denied approval because humanism is not a religion. I have seen numerous times religious persons insisting that any atheistic position or philosophy is a religion regardless of what its proponents say (with the apparent meaning religion is a bad thing). In this case both Access Ministries and the Victorian Humanist Society agree humanism is not a religion. I am inclined to say the course should be approved even so. Even if not actually a religion, humanism tends to fill the same sort of space in people's minds - a broad worldview informing and / or offering perspectives, principles and morals which can be used as a basis for individuals and / or communities to function.

Am also, by the way, pleased Muslim volunteers will be approved to teach their religion too, and surprised they were not already approved. Perhaps my faint memory of their being such classes available in primary school was not real, although this is in a different state.

Now, a chunk from the article:

Humanist Society education director Harry Gardner said he had designed a course to be taught from prep to year 6 called "Applied Ethical Education — Humanism for Schools". It covers subjects such as the art of living, the environment, philosophy, science and world citizenship. The curriculum is likely to be submitted for approval next year.

Dr Gardner, a former CSIRO research scientist, said his course adopted the "honesty ethic of science (that is, not fudging results)" with the intention that children would be inspired to think for themselves.

"If accredited for use in schools, the Humanist Society of Victoria envisages that the volunteer teachers would develop a comradely relationship to the regular religious instructors in adjacent rooms," he said.

But Access Ministries chief executive Evonne Paddison said while it was not her decision as to who should or should not have access to state schools, she did not think humanism fell under "the relevant legislation to be classified as a faith-based religion in religious instruction in the way that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism" did.

Ms Stokes said humanists could not expect to have it both ways. "It doesn't make sense because they proclaim themselves not to be a religion," she said.

Religious instruction in state schools should be Christian because "basically we are a Christian nation", she said.

Research director Jenny Stokes said: "If you go there, where do you stop? What about witchcraft or Satanism?

"If you accredit humanism, then those things would have an equal claim to be taught in schools."

116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for
prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test
shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust
under the Commonwealth.

Filter: hopeful

Avatar, that's a show I have been wanting to watch for a while now. Just lately lost_angelwings has informed me a live action film is to be made from the series and, as appears to be something of a tradition, many of the characters have been cast as white in stark contrast to their original depiction.

So, um, yay? I have not even been paying attention or looking and I can name a few off-hand this has happened to, like Dragon Ball, Speed Racer and Earthsea, so it is not hard to see a trend. Because we all know white people need as many breaks as they can get in the film industry, right? If race does not matter there should have been no problem casting to match characters' original conception, surely not such a thorough problem unless we want to pretend white people are just plain better actors. And if it does matter, well, there's even less excuse then.


Icon (plus others) from here, thanks again to lost_angelwings for the link.

Filter: pissed off

(18:56:15) celestialjayde: I don't know, tend to feel like by definition, if can do well, therefore not so bad.
(18:56:49) Pazi: Mrrr.
(18:57:27) Pazi: Mrr.
(18:57:39) Pazi: Everyone has things they must or can do.
(18:58:07) Pazi: Some people are good at some things, bad at others. Varies by individual.
(18:58:20) Pazi: Society says normal people are all good at x and bad at y
(18:58:28) celestialjayde: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wldoses28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
The news about resuscitation is important.
(18:58:41) Pazi: You are good at some of x, and some of y, bad at some of x and some of y, and so you are told you are not normal and therefore not good.
(18:58:43) celestialjayde: Society could never be wrong.
(18:59:00) Pazi: But you can have strong difficulties with a part of your life others find basic, yet be brilliant at things they cannot.
(18:59:33) Pazi: You grasp science, logic and language use in ways so fundamental that you are probably better with them than many science buffs, even if there are gaps in your education on paper.
(18:59:53) Pazi: This is not a trivial thing, it's just that society says normal people aren't good at those things.
(19:00:04) Pazi: Which is quite foolish, if you ask me.
(19:00:16) Pazi: You have difficulty with some things most people find trivially easy.
(19:00:22) Pazi: But...take it from me, sweetheart?
(19:01:03) Pazi: Your stated perspective, and observable behavior around polyamory, or indeed, relationships in general, bespeak a level of expertise and insight I think most never achieve.
(19:01:25) Pazi: You may not have as much hands-on experience with it is as some, but...
(19:01:34) Pazi: Mrr. I never passed a biology class, either.
(19:01:40) Pazi: Not since high school.
(19:02:18) celestialjayde: That is something I find very surprising, since you are so very broad and deep in your knowledge.
(19:02:51) celestialjayde: Mm. Was thinking as you were saying just above, it is excellently phrased what you have said, something we and others would do well to internalise. Would you mind if I posted it?
(19:03:34) Pazi: Not at all.
(19:03:44) celestialjayde: Kay, thank you.

Read it generalised, not specific. That's my advice.

Filter: impressed

That so many of the comments to this article seem to be suggesting that if only gender roles were less rigidly enforced, trans people would have the good grace to cease existing.

Fortunately, not true. I hope those people will realise this. At least the comments seem to improve further down the page.

Also very annoyed with comments indicating the commenter was dissatisfied with eir assigned gender role yet is not trans, phrased in a manner suggestive that ey believes ey was fortunate eir parents did not send em to a therapist and get em diagnosed trans, pushed into transsexuality. Mostly, because this suggests a disturbing attitude that being transsexual is something pushed on people who do not conform to assigned gender roles in order to make them over into something which fits their behaviour. It doesn't work that way, and trans people nearly always have to push to get what they want from the medical establishment - it is not forced on them - and it is unfortunately not unusual for medical professionals to torment their patients with arbitrary hoops and waiting periods more extreme than officially required.

I would find it laughable if this idea were not so pervasive, with so much social force behind it, but since this is such a common feminist criticism of the existence of trans people, I find it disturbing instead. It is not, nor should it ever be, about people being forced into something they do not wish. The issue is bodily and behavioural autonomy, and although they may seem to be, I do not think comments like this are helpful on this subject.

As a note to people who may not be aware of this, what Zucker does with the children brought to him seems to me very akin to one of the major (the major?) standard 'treatments' designed to render autistic children more normal.

Filter: full

Referring to people in the manner they prefer to be referred. Not needlessly being a jerk to people about their identity.

Filter: frustrated

Stumbled across something interesting recently. Here's how it begins:

I no longer recognize marriage. It’s a new thing I’m trying.

Turns out it’s fun.

Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

“How’s your longtime companion, Jill?”
“She’s my wife!”
“Yeah, well, my beliefs don’t recognize marriage.”

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it’s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another’s beliefs.

genderqueer

Filter: restless

As much as these public outbursts of white liberal racism in the wake of the recent US election are disgusting, I don't like better the recent Proposition 8 related shift to "Oh, it was just a right-wing misinformation campaign to sow division among their enemies; black people didn't really steal our rights after all."

Assuming for the moment the trumpeting of that falsehood were such an attempt, it wouldn't have worked if the queer rights movement were not thoroughly white and soaked in racism. If there had been more outreach all along, dialogue and inclusion with people of colour so it was allowed to be a movement of all queer persons and part of everyone's communities rather than by and for the white ones, who would have believed such a thing?

Blaming this recent exposure on conservative trickery is just another way to avoid dealing with it.

Filter: disappointed

Now for at least the next four years, whenever white people are disappointed in the US President, we can look forward to them saying "... and this is especially bad because he is black and should know better."

ETA 'white'

Filter: cynical

In transgender a poster made this request: "I wanted to open a discussion about all the things from childhood to adolescence that speaks to your gender not fitting into the concept of your birth sex."

This was my response:

When I was younger I used to read lots of books about astronomy and dinosaurs, trains, chemistry, biology and physics texts and sharks. I would keep rings and fake gems I found on the ground and believe them magic. At one point I asked for a necklace like the ones my sisters had, and I wore it until I had to stop. My favourite shows as a child were things like Star Trek and Transformers. I used to spend hours drawing atoms and molecules, or tracing identifying images of sharks and linnean diagrams of relation. In primary school I was given a ken doll, maybe what I asked for, so I could use it to play with my best friend in high school. We used to play with her doll in the bushes at school, pretending she (the doll) lived in the trees of a dense jungle with inspiration taken from Tarzan. I played a lot with toy transformers and dino-riders and thunderbirds and had no problem including action or 'off time'. When I was younger there were toy soldiers too, although with all my toys they were mostly references for the action happening in my imagination. For very many years I slept under a pile of plush toys who I regarded as friends and protectors, and share consciousness.

Most of my friends were girls. We would talk about writing and environmentalism and Star Trek and Judge Dredd and our various invented ideas and shared mini-culture. I conducted minor experiments in cryogenics and tried to adapt The Hobbit into a play without really understanding how that would work.

In high school I had little interest in most sports because they were distractions from reading and writing and also I did not know how they worked. I did play sports when I was younger, though, and only stopped when they became more competitive and physical than I wanted to be.

Although most of my friends have historically been girls I also hung out with a predominantly male group through much of high school, which later merged with a mostly-female group we had a close association with. The vast majority of men and women have always been puzzles to me and I do not understand much of their behaviour in other than an academic sense. I tended to be shunned by either unless they wanted someone to champion their side with trivia or reasoning.

In high school again I spent most of my time reading, now fantasy and science fiction since the available non-fiction had stopped telling me anything new. Apart from that, I mostly wrote my own stories. On one occasion I got up in the middle of the night because I suddenly needed to randomly generate (via dice and grid) a galaxy to use as a setting for something. Another time there was a mis-started attempt at a 'choose your own adventure' story. I shied away from horror stories and had an aversion to handling venomous arthropods. I played a lot of video games, especially strategy or first-person shooter types, and especially when I could share them with fun company. I once tried to make a pen-and-paper strategy game and even convinced someone to play it for an afternoon.

Sometimes I would look at other students and use them as a reference to imagine how my body would look if it had developed differently, or I would lie awake at night wishing for my body to change. I would wish I could change my body to suit what sex or appearance I wished to present at the time. I used to hate seeing my reflection, though later I appreciated it more. Growing up, I was often criticised by my mother that my mannerisms would give people 'inappropriate' ideas about my sexual orientation. Eventually I found out there was such a thing as HRT and nearly immediately set out to get myself on it.

I do not think anything in my past speaks to a gender not fitting any birth sex that might have been mine except the desire to alter this body.

Filter: contemplative

Recently there has been an outbreak of outrage, since it became more widely known that the UK LGB organisation Stonewall (their website describes the organisation as being for the rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals) lists someone named Julie Bindel as a nominee for their Journalist of the Year award.

Most of my information regarding this has so far been sourced from auntysarah. Her posts so far can be found as follows: Down With This Sort of Thing Too; Bindel's Found Us; Bindel/Stonewall Update; Second Letter to Stonewall.

The primary objection is that Julie Bindel is transphobic and deserves no award or nomination to honour her journalism, especially not from any organisation which claims to support the rights of queer people.

Some of what she wrote in 2004, in which she makes her disrespect for the lives and identities of trans people:

It's not all bad news, however. The British Columbia supreme court in Vancouver recently overturned an earlier decision of the human rights tribunal that Vancouver Rape Relief had breached the human rights code when it refused to allow Kimberley Nixon, a male to female transsexual, to train as a counsellor of female rape victims. In 2002, Nixon had won $7,500, the highest amount ever awarded by the tribunal, for injury to "her dignity".

The arrogance is staggering: having not experienced life as a "woman" until middle age, Nixon assumed "she" would be suitable to counsel women who have chosen to access a service that offers support from women who have suffered similar experiences, not from a man in a dress! The Rape Relief sisters, who do not believe a surgically constructed vagina and hormonally grown breasts make you a woman, successfully challenged the ruling and, for now at least, the law says that to suffer discrimination as a woman you have to be, er, a woman.

Feminists want to rid the world of gender rules and regulations, so how is it possible to support a theory which has at its centre the notion that there is something essential and biological about the way boys and girls behave? As someone who spurned dolls and make-up as a child, I find it deeply troubling that, had I gone to one of the specialist psychiatrists while growing up and explained how I did not feel like a "real girl" (which I did not, because I wanted to be a lesbian), I could be writing this as a trans man.

During the debate I argued that sex change surgery is modern-day aversion therapy treatment for homosexuals. The highest number of sex change operations take place in Iran, where homosexuality is punishable by death. Sex change surgery, therefore, renders gays and lesbians "heterosexual".

Filter: pissed off

Doing these weekly is easier for me, less timely for thee.

( Of course it gets cut )

Filter: sleepy

This is not right. A system that so fails and neglects those who have damaged themselves in its service, does deserve their service. It needs to be fixed. People do not deserve to be abandoned or fobbed off for financial convenience.

And the stigma surrounding mental health issues needs to go away.

Filter: angry

Your Results:

The top score on the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches your beliefs. However, even a score of 100% does not mean that your views are all shared by this faith, or vice versa.

Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in order of how much they have in common with your professed beliefs. The higher a faith appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with your thinking.

How did the Belief-O-Matic do? Discuss your results on our message boards.




1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
3. Liberal Quakers (76%)
4. Nontheist (72%)
5. Theravada Buddhism (71%)
6. Neo-Pagan (66%)
7. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (60%)
8. Taoism (53%)
9. New Age (51%)
10. Reform Judaism (42%)
11. Mahayana Buddhism (41%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (36%)
13. Bahá'í Faith (30%)
14. Sikhism (30%)
15. Scientology (29%)
16. Jainism (28%)
17. New Thought (27%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (21%)
19. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (18%)
20. Hinduism (18%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (16%)
22. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (13%)
23. Eastern Orthodox (9%)
24. Islam (9%)
25. Orthodox Judaism (9%)
26. Roman Catholic (9%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (6%)


Results seem fairly unchanged. Glarfed from nacho_cheese.

Filter: bored

"Why do you want to X?"
"Because my friends are and participating with them will provide us with shared memories and socialisation which will serve to further strengthen the bond of our friendship."

It seems contradictory to me, even hypocritical, that children are taught they ought to want to do things with other children but that they ought not do something because their friends are. I think what people are really after is ostensibly to teach from a young age the ability to recognise harmful or undesired actions and be in possession of the capacity to refuse participation in these even in the face of social pressure.

Except that parents or other authoritative people in a young person's life tend to want em to acquiesce to the pressures they place on em to engage in activities they approve of and to avoid those they disapprove of, often without particular reference to whether the person in question shares this desire. So we end up with apparently contradictory messages, such as that excursion in primary school in which teachers were insistent that I come join the other students in watching a video on why conformity is bad, rather than being off doing my own thing. I found that hilarious.

A certain degree of cooperation is necessary, so far as I can see, to keep a society functional, but I do not recall being taught this. Instead we get the message that we should do as everyone else is expected to, but not do what everyone else is doing, and thereby be anything we want to be.

Let's turn this around. Instead of[1] teaching people to resist peer pressure, let's teach people not to exert social pressure to coerce participation from the unwilling. Why must the onus be always on the victim to avoid being victimised? Why not teach people not to abuse the power and influence they have over others?


[1] As well as, really, but I like having a corrective footnote

Filter: thoughtful

Persons click here. Nifty words explaining that pretending characteristics which set people apart from the dominant group do not exist is in fact not a compliment and can lead to problems with lack of accommodation or plain ignoring of important aspects of identity.

Comments mostly okay, whiteness showing in the latter parts.

Filter: contemplative

Again, not so much read. Didn't I used to read more? Most of it after the point I decided I was too tired to do anything productive but not yet willing to sleep. Eventually I worked out why: it is because I am doing other things with my time, often social things. If I spend a few hours on Skype with soltice and pazi_ashfeather, of course I am not going to doing quite so much reading in the day.

Cosmic Variance

1. Dark Matter and Fifth Forces [Unfortunately I know this stuff less well than I ever did, but still a moment of "Oh wow, that is really interesting" in reading.]

1. Biodiesel Mythbuster 2.0: Twenty-Two Biodiesel Myths  Dispelled [via soltice. Long, interesting. Not something I am really qualified to evaluate. Looks decent though.]
2. Electric Skateboard (Double Comic) [via paradox_puree. skipped because I am not reading xkcd yet.]
3. Gibson intros SG Robot Guitar, new edition of Les Paul version [via soltice. My first thought was that this must be a guitar designed by William Gibson. I still do not know.]
4. What is the big deal about stuff white people like? [via paradox_puree. When I started reading this I thought I would have some quick, possibly snarky thing to say in response, but it turned out to be a serious criticism of the blog, one that made a lot of sense to me. Oh, one thing to add. I am inclined to agree with the comments to this post that 'Stuff White People Like' is fairly conservative in outlook in cliche in line, but the way it is framed still does some good by jarring white people to take another look at their assumptions and culture. At least, it did for me the first time I encountered it.]
5. Video: Little Big Man - today is a good day to die [via soltice. A robot driving a robot. Sort of. But it tempts me to have thoughts about things so it must be art.]
6. Australian government wants power to snoop work e-mail, IMs [via soltice. Oh, those insidious terrorists.]
7. Toon: A Few Reasons Why (We Need a Transgender Rights Bill) [via paradox_puree. Interesting. Not ever seen this site before. The rest of her work on the site seems pretty neat too.]
8. Libraries in crisis? [via soltice. Refers to here. Not so great news for someone hoping to work there next year. I am not convinced the writer of the article knows what ey is talking about though.]
9. Toon: The Joys of Tax Time! [via paradox_puree. If this keeps up, I may subscribe myself. Or this is good too.]
10. Burning Car [via paradox_puree. First thought: bored. On further examination, fascinated by the moments which might be so captured and their preservation marking dramatically the stilled moments of time marking the shifting sources of these images.]
11. Yuri's Planet [via paradox_puree. Thought I had starred this for possible desktop use. Apparently not. Fixed now.]

1. solticepazi_ashfeatherLeishmaniasis Parasites Evade Death By Exploiting Immune Response To Sand Fly Bites [Sometimes I wonder what immune systems do when they are not being subverted. Sometimes.]

Filter: sad

Group X is such a small group, there is so little harassment directed at them. Surely we do not need to enact measures to support Group X?

Because, yes, people do not frequently in daily life discriminate against such an extreme minority. The frequency of such occurrences is roughly equivalent to the frequency of members of Group X. Why, most people will never encounter it at all in their lives!

Filter: cynical

Child ---> New human.

Filter: mischievous

Cross-posted from feminist_rage

A couple of days ago I made a post (NSFW thanks to the subject of this post) pointing at some interesting discussion on religion. Being tired at the time I mostly wanted to show people so if I had something to say later they would be familiar, or leave their on thoughts on the subject.

Instead, what I found the next morning was this comment, titled 'Silly':

You're a silly little skirt, aren't you?

This is why we shouldn't let the girls in.

Filter: cheerful

"What if I told you I could give you something which could have you looking like the models and stars you see on tv and magazines in minutes?"

"No thank you; I already have image editing software installed."

Filter: cynical

From Zuska|Thus Spake Zuska via Julianne|Cosmic Variance:

This paper describes a statistical analysis showing clear discrimination by gender among postdoctoral researchers participating in a particle physics experiment. So far as I am aware it has not been published, nor is scheduled to be published. Nor am I capable of evaluating the rigour of the analysis, having only one mostly-forgotten class on statistics in my past (if anyone reading this can do so, that would be appreciated). Such constitutes my disclaimer.

For people interested in getting straight to the results, here is the most straightforwardly worded portion of this paper:

We find that females were allotted 40% more service work than males, and that the chances of this occurring in the absence of gender bias are less than 1%. This observation that females are significantly more often shunted into service work roles echoes the results of a study performed 27 years ago by Mary Gaillard (1980) on the status of of female physicists at CERN, a very large European particle physics laboratory. Particle physics has not progressed very far in this respect in the last three decades.

We also find that females were significantly more productive than their male peers in both
physics and service work, yet were awarded significantly fewer conference presentations; all 9 females in our sample were more productive than 24 out of the 48 males, yet the females had to be on average 3 times more productive than their male peers in order to be awarded a conference presentation. The chances of this occurring in the absence of gender bias are
less than 1%. This result is in remarkable concordance with the research of Wenneras and Wold, who found that females in their study had to be on average 2.5 times more productive than their male peers in order to receive a postdoctoral fellowship.

We note that this dearth of allocated conference presentations appears to hinder the ability of otherwise highly qualified females to become faculty members.

Filter: disappointed

( As stated in comments, I posted before I had finished my thought and its expression. New post later, but leaving this up )

Conclusion: annoyed.

Filter: annoyed

One of the great things about language is, it is open-source.

Filter: hyper

I despise arguments for acceptance on the basis that the person concerned holds no choice in being who they are. Common examples being homosexuality and, at the moment, transsexuality. Specifically the discussion - arguments - concerning people who see being transsexual as a birth defect, that their body and brain sex are mismatched and all they need is to have their bodies modified so they can live as normative members of society.

The problem is, such appeals work because it is currently possible to cosmetically alter the rest of the body to match the person's claimed brain sex and it is not currently possible to alter the brain so it conforms to the body.

I do not believe this will always be the case. If, in the future, it becomes possible to alter a person's gender (or sexuality) "I can't help it" will no longer be a tenable excuse. If you wish to have the freedom to live your life as you would prefer, you will have to find a new argument. One that will persuade the greater public it is wrong to deny you this freedom, or right to allow it.

To say people should be accepted on the basis of their not having a choice about who they are - to say "this trait is inborn and cannot be altered, and therefore you should not discriminate against me because of it" - implicitly suggests that people who cannot make the same claim are less deserving of acceptance and that someone who does have a choice should choose otherwise. If this argument is the condition on which people allow your existence, then as soon as it does become possible you will be expected to make the choice to become acceptable.

If you have a medical condition, then as technology improves you will be expected to be fully cured.

Cross-posted: aesmael, genderqueer, transfeminism, transgender

Filter: excited

A few days ago lost_angelwings and I came across some thoroughly dreadful essays and decided to split the raging between us. I got this community (yay!) but have been sick since so am only getting to it now. Bah! Enough preamble.

( Deal, teer - directly offensive to just about everyone )

And I think I am going to be sick now.

[cross-posted to feminist_rage ]

Filter: cold

I should be asleep. I should not be posting but not long ago I read something which has left me rather agitated and I need to scream somewhere. Here has been chosen.

Filter: distressed