In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

a photographic portrait of Charles Darwin's head and shoulders as old man with an impressive long white beard

Open Thread with Charles Darwin’s Beard

tigtog

It was Darwin Day this week, so Chas’ beard features for this week’s Open Thread. Please natter/chatter/vent/rant on anything* you like over this weekend and throughout the week.

a photographic portrait of Charles Darwin's head and shoulders as old man with an impressive long white beard
A portrait of Darwin taken in his home circa 1880, by Elliott & Fry [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

So, what have you been up to? What would you rather be up to? What’s been awesome/awful?
Reading? Watching? Making? Meeting?
What has [insert awesome inspiration/fave fansquee/guilty pleasure/dastardly ne’er-do-well/threat to all civilised life on the planet du jour] been up to?

* Netiquette footnotes:
* There is no off-topic on the Weekly Open Thread, but consider whether your comment would be on-topic on any recent thread and thus better belongs there.
* If your comment touches on topics known to generally result in thread-jacking, you will be expected to take the discussion to #spillover instead of overshadowing the social/circuit-breaking aspects of this thread.

109 thoughts on Open Thread with Charles Darwin’s Beard

    1. I saw that arson report, Aaliyah. It is horrifying. I am so sorry. It must be terrifying to be Muslim or of Muslim origin in this country.

    2. Yeah. It’s a complicated reaction for me, due to a) a big part of my family being Muslim, b) the fact that we’re ethnically Chinese/Javanese means none of us ‘look Muslim’ to most Americans, and c) me personally being an atheist who is, as a result, estranged from the more intensely religion branch of my family. When stories like this happen, I have so many contradictory emotions; fear for my family, gratitude that we can ‘pass,’ guilt for feeling said gratitude, anger and sadness that my family will (as always) take this as more evidence think I’ve betrayed them by ‘siding against them’ in a country that’s already hostile to their religion. It’s a lot.

      Anyways, my point is that I can’t claim to share exactly the same gamut of emotions you’re feeling, Aaliyah, but I do know very well the tightness in your gut when you read the headline. And it’s shitty, and I get it, and I’m sorry you have to go through that.

  2. Like every year, there’s a surge of requests on the Web for advice from men about presents to give to their female significant other for Valentine’s Day.

    Like every year, I can’t help but observe that there isn’t such a surge of requests for advice from women regarding their male significant other.

    And like every year, I can’t help interpreting this as a manifestation of the most basic mainstream patriarcal sexism.

    And like every year, I can’t help shitting on Valentine’s Day for this very reason.

    I’ll stop it when people will stop being so blatantly and blindly sexist about it and I get a Valentine’s Day present.

    1. Out of curiosity, if the season were flooded with women asking for help picking out a good enough gift for their male SO’s, but a conspicuous lack of man worrying about the same thing, wouldn’t you also consider that “a manifestation of the most basic mainstream patriarcal sexism”?

  3. So happy today! Yesterday, my best friend went into labor, and she and her husband and I went to the hospital and at 6:34 PM she gave birth to a plump, angry, healthy baby girl, my new goddaughter! Everyone is healthy and happy and everything is wonderful!

    More radio silence from me for the next couple days, I imagine, as we all get to know the new one and rejoice!

  4. So I note that Queen Elizabeth II has been queen for 63 years as of February 6th of this year, and I just feel compelled to point out how long that is. She has been queen since before there were James Bond novels (let alone movies), since before The Fellowship of the Ring was published, and since before there were Paddington Bear books. She has been queen since before the Quarrymen, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones. She has been queen since before Doctor Who and Monty Python.

    No real point to this. It just boggles my mind.

    1. One more year and she’ll have beat out Queen Victoria (63 years, 216 days), and will have the longest reign of all British monarchs.

      1. And her own father knew Queen Victoria as a child; she died when he was five years old. So, it only takes one person in between, in terms of degrees of separation, to go back not just 63 years, but all the way to the 19th century.

    2. My aunt bought me a Silver Jubilee T-shirt in 1977 (all nylon, intricate patterns, and garish colors, I just loved it!) and this makes me feel very old.

    3. So I note that Queen Elizabeth II has been queen for 63 years as of February 6th of this year, and I just feel compelled to point out how long that is.

      Eeek, I forgot to get her a present! I hope that won’t get me deported!

      2. How are you finding London, Steve? Whereabouts are you staying in terms of area? Happy to give some nice insider tips (restos, sights etc).

  5. I have a test for celiac disease on Wednesday which sucks because I eat a lot of bread, i’m a little skeptical but if it’s positive i’ll be able to eat more things and not feel sick all the time.

    Also I’m looking to join a local drag king troupe which is nerve wracking but fun. Overall things are good, my program is going well but math is still really hard and that sucks but it’s like, half over now.

      1. All anyone is really talking about (as with the Paris attacks) is the attack on freedom of speech. The fact that Jews are being killed just for being Jews is seen as almost irrelevant, understandable even because of Israel. Obviously.

        The vast majority of recent Jihadist attacks (including those planned and intercepted by the security services) have included a Jewish religious or communal target (Mumbai, Paris, Toulouse, Brussels, London multiple times). And still the wider public refuse to believe there is, for these extremists, a specifically religious component to their ideology. There is. And until this is addressed within the Muslim community and the governments of Europe et al, then Jews are extremely vulnerable. It is only a matter of time before it happens to my community. I can only selfishly hope that it will not be my father, cousin or friend shot going about their daily lives.

        1. I find this trend deeply upsetting as well. And I can’t help but draw a connection with the arson at the mosque Aaliyah talks about upthread. I had heard that even if nobody is openly talking about the anti-Semitism involved, police are being deployed to protect Jewish neighborhoods etc. Does anybody know if that’s true or just a rumor? (I heard it from a rabidly untrustworthy woman on a subway–she also kept insisting that all Muslims had four wives and fifty children and other racist things.)

        2. I doubt that that’s the case in Copenhagen, because it was only after what happened in Paris recently that the police in Copenhagen started guarding Jewish synagogues.

          And I am well past tired of people condemning the murders of Jews for being Jews, but always thinking it’s appropriate to add a “but Israel,” or an “and I also condemn the murders of Muslims,” or a “you can’t expect everyone to be as sophisticated as we are in distinguishing between hating Jews and hating Israel, and besides it’s really the Zionists’ fault for conflating the two,” when they never add an “and” or a “but” when condemning other murders.

          There is always an excuse for killing Jews. So many people don’t even think of us as real human beings; we’re just some kind of symbolic abstraction.

          There was a “#jesuisjuif” hashtag after what happened in Paris, but it wasn’t nearly as popular, and didn’t last nearly as long, as “jesuisCharlie.”

        3. And I am well past tired of people condemning the murders of Jews for being Jews, but always thinking it’s appropriate to add a “but Israel,” or an “and I also condemn the murders of Muslims

          I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be doing that–I was just struck by these two things happening in the same week, and had been thinking about writing up a blog post comparing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, but pretty much knowing I wasn’t going to have the time anytime soon..

        4. No apologies necessary; I certainly wasn’t thinking of you, and don’t believe there’s anything wrong with what you said. I have no problem with drawing connections between various kinds of hateful violence; my problem is with those who can’t ever manage to condemn the murders of Jews without some kind of caveat, or without implicitly excusing them.

  7. I’ve just started the process of changing my name (new name being Zelda), getting people to refer to me by it and switching over my facebook account.
    Not sure how long the rest of things will take, and how long it’ll take to actually get people to stop using my birth name (particularly extended family who I have little diret contact with) but it’s a start.

    2. Best wishes on the road ahead and congratulations on how far you have come!

      Zelda is such an unusual name. Would it be all right for me to ask why you selected it? (I’m interested in names and naming is all; if this question is too personal or in some other way upsetting, I apologize and completely understand if you ignore it.)

      1. I think the weird combination of it being a much older name than a lot of people think (variation of Griselda, which is at least mediaeval if not earlier) plus it being a bit, well, ‘kooky’, appealed to me.

        My birth name is also quite rare so keeping up the uncommon name thing helps.

  8. Do you guys still do guest posts? I just saw an article in Time that made me see red with its egregious stupidity, and engaged in a lengthy scientific sporking. It’s blathering about why women won’t be as turned on by watching a sexy movie as reading the book (Fifty Shades related, but that’s not the part I’m ranting about), using “girls don’t like comics” levels of logic and an inane, but incredibly common, assertion about what men and women evolved for to look for in a partner.

    Y’all probably know me but since I’ve been avoiding the feminist blogosphere for a year and a half while I tried to get my blood pressure under control: I have a strong interest in *good* science about the evolutionary or cultural underpinnings of human behavior, and am horrified at what passes for good science nowadays, so I do a lot of logical sporkings of bad evopsych (which nowadays is most of it) from the perspective of someone who really does believe human behavior was shaped by evolution, just not by evolution in a *vacuum*. Also, I write fanfic and am an active member of the fanfic community, so I actually know a lot about where this particular idiot got his data from.

    I published it on my own blog in a rough form (http://alarajrogers.tumblr.com/post/111044754034/i-dont-want-to-get-off-on-a-rant-here-but-wait), but I’d like to clean it up, add some links, and publish it for a wider audience who’d actually care, so I’m wondering if you guys would let me do it as a guest post.

      1. Thanks, is there an email address or other private medium I should contact you by, or should I just use the closest open thread at the time?

        1. Just send us a line using the form on the “Submit A Guest Post” page linked in the sidebar (under Quicklinks) and we’ll take it from there.

    2. Good luck controlling your BP. I’ve been on meds since 2003 and I try hard to lower my sodium consumption.

  9. Very disappointed with this letter that appeared in the Guardian:

    Supposedly a letter about free speech on UK universities, but actually seems to be about people annoyed that their hateful ideas are being critiqued. A number of the signers have been criticised before for transphobic comments. The main signer – Beatrix Campbell I saw on twitter saying TERF was a term of abuse. (Really puts me off voting for the Green Party)… And of course scare quotes around transphobic and whorephobic.

    As an academic it is really quite alarming how many other academics signed this letter without (or with) researching the background/context of this.

  10. Until my larger comment gets out of moderation, this was the letter that was in the Observer on the weekend.

    It is annoying on a number of levels…

        1. I remember hearing a while ago that Tatchell got into some hot water himself over comments he made that could be construed as supportive of or sympathetic to pedophilia and child abusers, so I’d imagine that ever since he’s been somebody who likely has his own “persecution complex” going on. People who experience it themselves often become trumpeters of the “free speech” line of thinking.

      2. This is hardly the first time that Peter Tatchell has been antagonistic towards trans people, so I’m not the least bit surprised to see his name.

        Mary Beard is another story. I admire her so much, and love everything I’ve read by her, so I am extremely sad to see her name. I feel the same way I did when I saw that Marge Piercy signed that anti-trans letter back in 2013: that it feels like being betrayed, and that it must be ignorance rather than malice, and that if only I could talk to her, I could make her understand.

        As always when it comes to trans-related issues in the U.K., I highly recommend reading Roz Kaveney’s comments about this on Twitter.

        1. I didn’t know that about Peter T, but thanks for the head’s up Donna. Will also check Roz Kaveney out on twitter!

          I think what’s as disappointing is the unwillingness of either to see why people are hurt about this issue…

        2. Roz Kaveney (full disclosure, a good friend of mine) is an admirable feminist and trans activist whose commentary is always worth reading. She is unfailingly generous of spirit, even to those who have long demonstrated that they don’t merit such generosity, as well as being incredibly intelligent and witty. And with an impeccable history of left activism. And she pretty much knows everybody in England.

      3. A couple of well-reasoned responses to the letter, pointing out in particular some of the mischaracterizations of fact, as well as the implication, through use of loaded language like “bullying” and “silencing,” that trans women are the ones with power in the situation, and are the ones suppressing “free speech” in order to force compliance with their unspecified “demands” (like using the bathroom!):

        http://feministkilljoys.com/2015/02/15/you-are-oppressing-us/

        http://www.sarahlizzy.com/blog/?p=293

        I also see that Roz has been engaging with Mary Beard on twitter, since Roz knows her. (Just like she knows everyone else in England, as EG points out!)

        3. That she provided evidence and screenshots, and I’m making the assumption she’s not such a villain that she’d take the time to photoshop huge amounts of online interactions?

    3. Also, so as to know for next time, could a moderator let me know what words might have put my first post in moderation?

      1. I’m no moderator, but my guess would be your use of the word w*h*o*r*e*phobic.

        On a feminist blog, I have a feeling that the use of the first part of that word generally signals that something foul and misogynistic is being said!

    4. I strongly agree with the letter, and I strongly oppose transphobia and discrimination against sex workers (I’d say whorephobia, but I know many sex workers have mixed feelings on re-appropriation of that word). I’d imagine many of the signatories feel the same way.

      1. To expand on why I think the letter-writers are correct, consider that British universities have gone so far as to ban right-wing newspapers. They’ve banned conservatives from debating on campus. They dis-invited pro-Israel speakers because they received so many threats. And while I’m left-wing, I think the idea of universities banning opposing viewpoints is fucking repugnant. The correct answer to speech you disagree with is to disagree with it, loudly and clearly! It’s not censorship (and yes, in the context of a public university, that is genuine censorship).

        Or consider the story of Kate Smurthwaite, a feminist comedian. A university canceled her show because they received threats against her. Why were the people making threats upset? Because she had once stated she believed that she believed in the Nordic model of decriminalizing sex work (where Johns can be arrested, but not prostitutes) and that it was sexist to require women to wear a burqua. Now, I disagree with her on the former issue, and agree on the latter, but these are not hateful views. They’re feminist views, even if we could debate their specifics. And for this, she receives death threats and ends up being blacklisted?

        I’m kinda disappointed to see so many people here equating being pro-free-speech, and pro-whatever-people-use-it-to-say. The ACLU would like to have a word with you.

        1. ludlow22, if you were not previously aware that Goldsmith’s Comedy is one of many Student Union societies that run their own meetings/events with virtually no oversight from the university administration (unless a student complains that the particular society breaches campus guidelines, when the Universtity Vice-Chancellor can make an official request that the Student Union disavow them), then please take that fact into consideration before you say that any “university” is doing these things. Student societies make their own decisions for their own reasons, and students cancelling one of their own events or disinviting a guest speaker (because most student societies are just sideline hobbies while they are getting their degrees and they understandably choose not to challenge avalanches of unwelcome attention from the wider public) is nothing to do with cowardice regarding free speech on the part of the university itself. Or do you want the universities to force student societies to host events they’ve had second thoughts about?

        2. Given that Roz Kaveney has done fairly influential and important work for Liberty, the UK equivalent of the ACLU and was a founder of Feminists Against Censorship, I’m going to go ahead and trust her assessment of the situation a bit more than yours. Free Speech here is being used as a cat’s paw.

        3. Hi, actually student at a British university who is quite involved in societies (and long time lurker) here. Just thought I’d clarify a few things.

          A lot of unions ban the Sun from being sold in university shops, yes. The Sun prints pictures of topless women on page three everyday and have done many shock pieces of reporting that are awful (especially concerning the Hillsborough disaster). People can still buy it elsewhere and bring it onto campus though, it’s hardly banned.

          Speakers are organised by student societies. At my university the money that the student union gets goes towards running venues and administration. If you want money for a specific event you have to apply for a grant and justify that. The general running a of the society are vey much funded by membership payments and charging for events. While I have seen some very left wing things advertised I have also seen some very right wing things organised and advertised that I personally thing are awful.

          There are a wide range of societies in most unions. In the case of Kate Smurthwaite it was actually the actions of a few individuals, not a society, that caused the cancelation (there was a vote in the feminist society I believe, but they voted to not protest the show as a society).

          The student union supports academic, sport, cultural and appreciation societies, not just political ones. There are definitely things to be criticised about student unions and the politics that end up being played (as there are things to criticise about that letter) but a union not wanting to represent a view is not the same as the university it is associated with censoring it.
          (Sorry if this posts in a seemingly illogical place, I’m not very used to this comments system)

      2. So, since you support the letter so strongly, please explain exactly which of the unspecified “demands” of trans people you disagree with, and think it’s appropriate to give people a platform to oppose?

        Every single one of the signatories — including those who think that trans women are violent men who want to rape women (and/or inherently rape women by their mere existence) and should, therefore, be excluded from women’s spaces — has all sorts of places where they can spew their bigotry (including the beliefs of some that trans women’s vaginas smell like rotten meat and feces). I’m not sure why you think it’s “silencing” them for an organization to decide not to give them a platform.

        And please explain to me how it is that trans women and their supporters have the power — especially in the U.K., where transphobic feminism still dominates a lot more than it does in the USA — to “bully” or “silence” anybody. A bit misleading of the letter to bring up Germaine Greer, don’t you think, considering that she actually did speak, as scheduled?

        1. please explain exactly which of the unspecified “demands” of trans people you disagree with

          None of them.

          and think it’s appropriate to give people a platform to oppose?

          If you’re a public university, all of them.

          I’m pretty much unshakably opposed to censorship, regardless of how much I dislike the speech that might be censored.

          And please explain to me how it is that trans women and their supporters have the power to ‘bully’ or ‘silence’

          I don’t think they actually do either of those things, though they certainly have the power to do so within specific limited contexts, like left-wing universities.

          Anyways, I’ll just repost what I said a single post up:

          To expand on why I think the letter-writers are correct, consider that British universities have gone so far as to ban right-wing newspapers. They’ve banned conservatives from debating on campus. They dis-invited pro-Israel speakers. And while I’m left-wing, I think the idea of universities banning opposing viewpoints is fucking repugnant. The correct answer to speech you disagree with is to disagree with it, loudly and clearly! It’s not censorship (and yes, in the context of a public university, that is genuine censorship).

          1. Anyways, I’ll just repost what I said a single post up:

            To expand on why I think the letter-writers are correct, consider that British universities have gone so far as to ban right-wing newspapers. They’ve banned conservatives from debating on campus. They dis-invited pro-Israel speakers. And while I’m left-wing, I think the idea of universities banning opposing viewpoints is fucking repugnant. The correct answer to speech you disagree with is to disagree with it, loudly and clearly! It’s not censorship (and yes, in the context of a public university, that is genuine censorship).

            I’ll just repost a paraphrase of what I wrote above: no British university has done any such thing. Individual student societies on university campuses have done some of these things for their own reasons (which are probably mostly to do with most student societies being hobbies not careers). Student societies in the UK (and British Commonwealth generally) are run by the Student Unions which have their own facilities which the campus administration have virtually nothing to do with. Do you really think that university administrations should force student societies to continue with events that the students have had second thoughts about, whether those second thoughts are laudable or not?

        2. As tigtog points out, these invitations have nothing to do with the universities, but are extended by student organizations, which have no obligation whatsoever to provide a platform to anyone, or to give “equal time” to different viewpoints.

          Don’t forget that the letter-writers themselves conceded that it’s appropriate to deny platforms to fascists, Holocaust deniers, etc. I don’t think it’s any less appropriate to deny platforms to racists, anti-Semites, homophobes, and, yes, transphobes. As Roz Kaveney points out, the signatories are “only against hate speech when it’s not about a group they already dislike.” See https://twitter.com/RozKaveney/with_replies

          And all you have to do to see what kind of people the signatories are allying themselves with is to follow Roz’s link to gendertrender.

        3. I think it’s true that our condemnations should be aimed more strongly at the students than the universities they attend.

          That said, since student unions do get block grant funding from their universities, I’d argue the appropriate response would probably be to remove said funding if they refuse to demonstrate content-agnostic policies. I’m not sure how much of a moral high ground you can take by, instead of censoring views you don’t like, you just fund someone else to do it for you.

          That does complicate the issue though- thank you for bringing it up.

          1. That said, since student unions do get block grant funding from their universities, I’d argue the appropriate response would probably be to remove said funding if they refuse to demonstrate content-agnostic policies.

            Student Unions in Australia don’t get block grant funding from their universities. They are funded via separate fees that students pay to join the student union (so that they can access the student union facilities) and those fees funds are administered by the elected officers of the student unions. I believe that this is the standard model for student unions at public universities throughout the British Commonwealth.

          1. As your link demonstrates, there appears to be serious concern about that funding change threatening the independence of student unions. Student unions here in Oz seem to have historically offered a far greater range of student services than just the bars/clubs mentioned in that article in any case, so there are obviously going to be points of operational difference, but the student society setup seems to be similar – likeminded students decide to set up a special-interest society, and apply for their society to be registered with the student union in order to access union-operated spaces for their meetings/events etc (funding is a separate matter and not all student societies need to apply for student union funds in order to operate their events). Student unions have rules about what sort of societies they will accept as registered by the student union (outright hate groups generally discouraged etc). Students can however set up societies outside the ambit of student unions entirely, but they may have more difficulty finding venues on campus for their events, although many local pubs are likely to be glad to rent almost any group an upstairs room.

            So, the student societies are already organised by special interests of their members, and each society is administered by elected student volunteers from the membership who have very limited time and funding at their disposal for what are essentially their hobby interests. A Student Union, again administered by elected student volunteers, albeit more likely those with a tendency to serious interest in student politics, merely provides the wide range of student societies with spaces in which they can hold their events.

            Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech are equally important, and both include the corollary Freedoms of Not Listening and Not Attending and especially the Freedom of Declining To Host. Nobody is obliged to continue with plans to host an event whose nature changes – why should a special-interest comedy club be forced to go ahead with an event that has suddenly become extremely political and thus now falls outside the light-entertainment remit of their special-interest student society, public grants-funding or not?

      3. Also, have you ever read what Germaine Greer has actually written about trans women? Why is it any more important to give her a platform than to give a platform to those who engage in hate speech regarding gays and lesbians, or Jews, or women in general, or about any other marginalized group?

        1. Why is it any more important to give her a platform than to give a platform to those who engage in hate speech regarding gays and lesbians, or Jews, or women in general, or about any other marginalized group?

          Please, when you have a moment, point me to where I claimed it was more important to do so.

        2. The point being that even the letter-writers concede that it’s appropriate to “no platform” fascists, Holocaust deniers, etc. As I explained in a comment that’s in moderation, I don’t see racists, homophobes, transphobes, etc. as any different.

        3. I thoroughly agree with Donna. Every single person they bring up in their middle paragraph does nothing but spew bile toward trans women: Julie Bindel, Germaine Greer, Rupert Read. They all have major platforms, including national papers, from which to do so. Yet any pushback from trans activists is “bullying” and “silencing”? Bullshit. I would be appalled if my university invited David Duke or some other racist scumbag to speak, and Julie Bindel merits no more consideration.

        4. I would be appalled if my university invited David Duke or some other racist scumbag to speak, and Julie Bindel merits no more consideration.

          I find this sentiment appalling.

        5. Really? Universities are obligated to give former KKK members platforms? On what grounds? Or is it the comparison between Duke and Bindel you dislike? The hatred she spews toward trans women may be within the realm of the acceptable to you, but it’s not to me.

        7. Or is it the comparison between Duke and Bindel you dislike? The hatred she spews toward trans women may be within the realm of the acceptable to you, but it’s not to me.

          Bingo. Not trying to impugn your motives, as you come across as a sincere and well-meaning person. But I find the comparison between racism and transphobia odious, and yes, appalling. If you cant see how that comparison would trouble me as a black woman from the southern United States, I’m not sure what to tell you.

        8. But I find the comparison between racism and transphobia odious, and yes, appalling. If you cant see how that comparison would trouble me as a black woman from the southern United States, I’m not sure what to tell you.

          I’m also a Black woman from the southern United States, and I’m not seeing it.

        9. Actually, I can see how the invocation of the KKK would be offensive; as far as I know, Bindel has not belonged to a violent terrorist hate group. I used it because of the horrifying rates of violence against trans women. I do apologize for that. But I’m not seeing why the parallel between racism and transphobia is in itself obnoxious–I’m not saying that if it were racism, hey, everybody would see it. I’m saying that I would be just as disgusted. And given that the parallel was in the original letter, in denying that TERFs are as bad as Holocaust-deniers, I think it’s worth making the point that yes, they are just that bad.

        10. Do you also find transphobia odious and appalling, or just the fact that it was mentioned in the same discussion as racism?

          Nobody was equating the two. Putting them both on a list of bigotries one finds unacceptable does not imply that they’re the same, or equal in their degree of evil.

          That said, I have read essays and articles by black trans women who have found the effects of both on their lives to be devastating.

          But change the hypothetical if you like: pick some vile anti-Semite, someone who says loathsome things about Jews. I don’t think it’s appropriate to give a platform to someone like that, but I think it’s just as inappropriate to give a platform to someone like Bindel or Raymond or Greer or Jeffreys. (And remember that there’s no “free speech” issue; the government has nothing to do with any of this, and each of the latter has immediate access to a dozen alternate platforms, including major British newspapers, to spout their loathsome views).

          The impact of anti-Semitism and transphobia on my life have both been extraordinary. The latter more directly, in fact. Acknowledging the latter is not an insult to the importance of the former.

  11. TW

    As a tiny little bit of a disability rights activist, I’ve been thinking about what laws I’d like to see in regards to disability rights. (This is idealistic not realistic, and it concerns American law since that’s what I know.)

    In no particular order:

    A ban on segregated/sheltered workshops.

    A requirement of equal pay for people with disabilities (if you think there already is, see section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act).

    A requirement that individuals with physical disabilities must be offered services in the most integrated setting possible (the Supreme Court case Olmstead v. L.C. already established that for those with mental disabilities).

    A requirement that states which receive Medicaid must provide home care services and community based services (they are already required to provide nursing home services).

    A ban on dwarf tossing.

    A requirement that money have Braille on each bill and coin indicating how much it is worth, and that money worth more be physically bigger (bills and coins increasing in size as they increase in value) and that bills of different values be also different colors (widely different, not just shades of green) to help people with visual impairments distinguish the money. I understand some people with visual impairments don’t need this help, but it should be available for those who do or who want it.

    Forced psychiatric treatment and/or psychological treatment being legally allowed only for those who as determined in a legal hearing with representation are an imminent danger to themselves or others (and are refusing treatment for what causes the danger.)

    Restraint and/or seclusion being legally allowed only for those who otherwise would be an imminent danger to themselves or others, and being legally required to be done only in a safe manner. This should be so everywhere – schools, juvenile justice facilities, prisons, immigration detention centers, police encounters, nursing homes and other institutions, etc.

    Universal health care.

    Full federal and state funding for all disability programs required by law.

    An end to all limits on income/wealth required to receive Social Security and disability benefits of any kind.

    All disaster management and emergency preparedness plans legally required to include people with disabilities.

    All movies in all movie theaters required to have large print subtitles for the deaf and audio description machines (enough for all seats)for the blind. All movies on Netflix, Hulu, etc. and all TV shows and web series (including on Netflix, Hulu, etc.) required to have large print subtitles as well.

    Well, that’s all I can think of now. Pitch in if you like.

    1. Oh, and ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of course. Both ratifications without any reservations, declarations, or understandings.

    2. I’ve worked in this field in a couple of different capacities, and I agree with most of the stuff you say. A lot of it is, in theory, what’s in practice in my state (Illinois USA).

      Illinois is shockingly good about a lot of this–better on paper than in practice, but everywhere I worked had very determined people who both firmly believed and upheld the standards as much as was logically possible. So much of these would be so much easier with more resources–more money for case managers, higher pay for direct caregivers, more funding directed at social services and better staff-to-client ratios.

      The only thing I moderately disagree with you is

      All movies in all movie theaters required to have large print subtitles for the deaf

      Because I have difficulty watching and concentrating on a film if there are same-language subtitles. If there were options–say, a few showings with subtitles, a few showings without, the same way they do 3D, that would be better.

      I would like to see more disability-friendly seating scattered around the theatre (not just in the front floor area) and have more “lights-on” movies offered. I used to hesitate to take clients to movies because of the lack of seating to easily get in/out from, as well as the fact that negotiating someone with physical, cognitive, and sensory disabilities in the dark is always a little dangerous for both parties. My elderly grandfather has stopped going to movies because he cannot walk safely in the dark to use the bathroom, and the flashing lights in a dark theatre gives my SO terrible headaches, so we never go to movies much anymore. Lights-on seating would be a really helpful option.

      Most lights-on movies are during the day and specifically geared towards families with small children–which is great, but a theatre full of little kids is no safer for my grandfather to navigate and is even more of a distressing sensory explosion for many of my former clients.

    3. I’m with you on about 90% of that (and thanks for making a list, it’s a great one).

      Forced psychiatric treatment and/or psychological treatment being legally allowed only for those who as determined in a legal hearing with representation are an imminent danger to themselves or others (and are refusing treatment for what causes the danger.)

      Having had a girlfriend go through the system, and knowing the shitty parts firsthand, I’m confused by the changes you’re asking for. The current landscape in the post- O’Connor v. Donaldson and Rogers v. Okin world is very strong; court orders are required to institutionalize people over the long term, but 72-hour holds are available for psychiatric emergencies (such as an attempted suicide). Court orders are required to forcibly medicate someone, and such medication can only take place in emergency situations where the lack of medication could reasonably be expected to lead to serious injury, and must stop as soon as the emergency is over (and if it lasts longer than 48 hours, a new court order is needed to extend the forcible medication). At all these hearings, patients are entitled to representation and to appear in front of a judge. When they’re admitted, they’re provided a copy of these rights, must have those rights explained to them, and are provided with contact information for the statewide agency responsible for enforcing those rights.

      It’s not perfect, and any trade-off between liberty and safety never will be; my girlfriend was held for 72 hours because she was crying uncontrollably in public for entirely reasonable sadness-reasons, and I also know people who are infuriated at the system because it made it so hard to hold a suicidal relative involuntarily that he was able to kill himself. But it’s as good a balance as I can work out.

      What we really need to change is the funding available to CPEPs (i.e. psychiatric emergency rooms). Those places are usually hellholes; everyone from violent felons suffering psychotic breaks to scared 16-year-old kids with depression end up in the same communal gender-integrated holding area, unrestrained, and if you’re unlucky enough to be there overnight the lights go out and you sleep in your chair in a hospital nightgown. Oh, and if you tell a nurse how scared you are that the guy in the next chair keeps saying he’s going to rape you when the lights go out, they interpret it as psychiatric anxiety and give you a sedative.

      1. Good points ludlow22 and karak. I also want to add that there should be a ban on discrimination due to disability in visitation, custody, and adoption. If someone’s disability makes them a danger and/or unable to adequately care for somebody else, they can be denied on the basis that they are a danger/inadequate, without bringing disability into it specifically. Likewise, there should be a ban on discrimination in colleges/universities due to disability; if someone isn’t smart enough, due to their disability or otherwise, deny them because they don’t meet the standard on test scores/curriculum/grades, not because of disability.

        1. “The current landscape in the post- O’Connor v. Donaldson and Rogers v. Okin world is very strong; court orders are required to institutionalize people over the long term, but 72-hour holds are available for psychiatric emergencies (such as an attempted suicide). Court orders are required to forcibly medicate someone, and such medication can only take place in emergency situations where the lack of medication could reasonably be expected to lead to serious injury, and must stop as soon as the emergency is over (and if it lasts longer than 48 hours, a new court order is needed to extend the forcible medication). At all these hearings, patients are entitled to representation and to appear in front of a judge. When they’re admitted, they’re provided a copy of these rights, must have those rights explained to them, and are provided with contact information for the statewide agency responsible for enforcing those rights.”

          Are those rights nationwide, or do they vary by state? I think (could be wrong) I recall some states being more coercive than that.

        2. if someone isn’t smart enough, due to their disability or otherwise,

          I’m sorry, but this is problematic, if not ableist language.

        3. If someone’s disability makes them a danger and/or unable to adequately care for somebody else, they can be denied on the basis that they are a danger/inadequate, without bringing disability into it specifically. Likewise, there should be a ban on discrimination in colleges/universities due to disability; if someone isn’t smart enough, due to their disability or otherwise, deny them because they don’t meet the standard on test scores/curriculum/grades, not because of disability.

          Organizations are already doing that, but they’re doing it in a way that they won’t have to explicitly state that the dismissal or rejection is, in fact, due to a person’s disability.

        4. Are those rights nationwide, or do they vary by state? I think (could be wrong) I recall some states being more coercive than that.

          There are definite variations by state, but they’ve been relatively minor in the last 10-12 years because the rulings that put the current system in place happened at the Federal level.

          The big difference, in my experience, isn’t the legal framework but the funding. Large metropolitan areas, for example, tend to be a way better place to enter the system (though better is obviously a super relative term) because they have things like dedicated psychiatric emergency rooms, agencies that exist solely to enforce patient’s rights, a court system used to processing mental-health-related cases, etc. If you’re somewhere rural and/or poor, your legal rights are the same, but the quality of systems put into place to protect them isn’t.

          The other big difference in outcomes is whether you have someone advocating for you on the ‘outside.’ And, as you’d expect, it helps a lot when that person is well educated, middle/upper class, confident (which sounds like a neutral character trait but IMO is often a function of having the resources not to be scared of authority figures), etc. When my girlfriend ended up in the system, I took time off work, slept at the hospital, checked in with the nurses hourly, called her therapist daily, lodged a complaint with hospital administrators, and generally was such a pest that they tried to force me leave, ultimately leading to me calling a lawyer friend who met with the hospital administrators and made sure I could stay. Largely as a result, she was able to get out relatively quickly and get treated fairly well when she was stuck inside.

          It should go without saying that a lot of people don’t have someone who can take three days off work, have friends willing to provide free legal counsel, know their rights, hold their ground in an acrimonious confrontation with highly-educated professionals, etc. Basically all those things are a function of class privilege (though I could also see a straight white dude with less class privilege pulling the same thing off, and there are definitely parts of the country where being a woman dating a woman would have prevented me from being as effective).

  12. Ahh, the second weekend of February.. The trifecta of troubling holidays in Ontario.

    Valentine’s day.. Commercialized, heteronormative, conspicuous consumption… So many problems

    Flag day… Celebrating a symbol of colonialism, yuhuh

    Family day… Weird made-up holiday created in the very recent past solely as an excuse to have a holiday in February by a government that has been complicit in helping fuck over families

    So much ugh.

  13. Hey, did you all know Kate Brown is going to become the governor of Oregon on Wednesday because the current governor resigned, and that this will make her America’s first openly bisexual governor?

  14. Hi Everybody. Long time no read.

    Got a question, if anyone knows much about employment law in the US, and/or California. I recently had my annual review, and for the second time was told that I needed to improve my “body language”. I have no idea what was meant by that, as my manager did not give me any specifics of what I was doing that needed to be improved upon, nor how to improve it. I might have asked, if I had not be horrified.

    Is that legal? It seems like it shouldn’t be. It seems like weird body policing stuff like that might fall under some kind of protection.

    Anybody know? Or does anybody know of a legal resource I could use to find out?

    Thanks in advance. I hope you’re all well.

    1. I work in a vaguely HR capacity sometimes, and the only explanation I can think of (besides your employer bullshitting, which is always a salient possibility!) is if your job has some vague clauses about approachability and “friendly” body language in the description. Stuff about maintaining approachability. Although it sounds more like employer BS to me, unless you’re somehow flipping people the bird without noticing 🙂

    2. It’s hard to know whether you have a claim without a more specific criticism from your boss. There are definitely ways your employer could be running afoul of disability, age, or gender discrimination laws; there are also totally legal things that could be at work here, especially if you work in a public-facing job like hospitality.* In other words, if you’re an able-bodied person working at the front desk of a hotel, your boss could legally ask you not to slouch on the counter.

      TLDNR: context is everything.

      *Note that legal does not mean ethical or acceptable

    3. Was this in writing or orally?

      Anyway. I am an employment lawyer, though not in CA. So here goes, bluntly, be warned.

      It’s interesting that your reaction was “horrified.” I wasn’t horrified at all. That certainly isn’t automatically problematic. It may be a problem–or it may be well-intentioned and it may be justified.

      When I talk to managers, you often hear them say things like “I have this employee who is clearly smart, but she doesn’t realize that she alienates people through her unusually unfriendly body language and that I constantly have to keep reassuring folks she isn’t mad.” I wish she would improve so she could get promoted. To me, this sounds more in that category than the “woman, change your manner to please me” category. At least from what you wrote.

      Honestly, you may have a problem with body language, at least as it affects your particular job. Just like some people have a problem with halitosis, or some people constantly stand too close for their employers’ comfort, and some people are too prickly, and so on. People sometimes act in ways which aren’t good for their careers: It’s not illegal to like some folks ore than others; it’s not illegal to give better positions to folks you like. What this probably means is that you’re not as likeable as your employer would hope (at least in their opinion), and that they’re trying to figure out a way to like you better. That is not a bad thing.

      (And this may piss you off, but it’s free legal advice so whaddya expect: you’ve heard this for two years now, and your response continues to be “they suck.” You haven’t even asked them, or, apparently, considered the question of “huh. I wonder whether they’re assholes or if I’m doing something I don’t easily recognize?” You know this better than I do, but I’m wondering if you actually might BE in the “prickly/difficult” category of folks, who often do have bad body language.)

      Anyway: As a practical matter, my temptation would be to politely(very important !!!) ask them to give some extra details. Ideally by email. It may be hard to feel like you should be polite at all, but it’s worth it. If you can’t even manage to grant them that politeness, go talk to an attorney.

      But there’s a benefit to a polite request. If it turns out that their requests are unreasonable or discriminatory (‘show your boobs more!!”), you’ll have evidence to support a suit. And if it turns out that their requests are actually “when meeting clients, you slouch and scoot far away from them on the corner of the desk; you look away from them when they talk; it makes you look disinterested an hostile,” then things change. Those things are perfectly reasonable.

      (and for what it’s worth, I personally used to piss folks off by appearing to ignore them, even when I was actually listening. I wasn’t motivated to change until someone was blunt about it; it remains some of the best career advice I’ve had. So don’t be too fast to assume this will end badly.)

      Try something like this, in your own words:

      “Dear Boss,
      In my review, you said that you’d like me to improve my body language. If I recall correctly, that’s the second year you’ve made the same comment about body language.

      I would like to try to take your advice, but unfortunately I’m not sure what you think I’m doing wrong. Would you be willing to share any specifics about areas that you think need improvement, and/or specific things which you think I should either be doing or not doing? I would like to work with you, etc etc.”

      1. I have a fabulous colleague who got some really great advice from an organizational development consultant who was working with our team, and it all centered on the “body language” issue. Before she talked to him, I had never even noticed the problem because we are peers working on the same stuff and I just respect the hell out of his knowledge and professionalism. But when he told me what she had said about his body language and how it affected his relationship with subordinates and with people we hoped to develop business with it was SO OBVIOUS to me. Things she specifically told him and that I confirmed (but I had never ticked as problematic because they didn’t affect our professional relationship):
        – you don’t actively listen to people, mirror what they are saying
        – you don’t make eye contact when they are talking to you (even if you make eye contact when you are talking to them) giving the impression of distraction when they have the floor
        – you roll your eyes when they are talking. Even if this indicates you are thinking deeply about what they are saying and wondering how it might be done, it gives the impression you are exasperated with them
        – your body language indicates you are anticipating being able to speak back and figuring out what to say instead of actively listening to them

        It’s pretty simple stuff but also easy to miss in your daily life with a team composed of people who “get” you and appreciate your strengths. The image you portray to non-quotidian contacts may not be so positive and that may be what your boss is picking up on.

    4. Note:
      I suggest asking about what your employer thinks about what they are calling the problem.

      that is not at all the same as agreeing that there is a problem ans asking how to solve it. the “try to take your advice” part is just to get them to answer honestly so you can decide what to do next.

      Also:

      In other words, if you’re an able-bodied person working at the front desk of a hotel, your boss could legally ask you not to slouch on the counter.

      Jesus, that is way too extreme.

      Here is a list of perfectly reasonable employer-level demands, which are often problems with a ton of employees, and which would never be a legal OR ethical problem problem absent some sort of ADA disability:
      -look at people when you talk to them.
      -don’t interrupt.
      -don’t close-talk
      -don’t smell really strong.

      and so on.

      The suggestion that employers can only care about interpersonal interactions for front desk folks is simply wrong. That limitation applies (when it does) more to VERY limited situations, which is to say that they can possibly, not definitely, refuse to hire old, ugly, overweight, balding, male me to man the front desk at the teen girl hair modeling agency.

      But even outside the modeling agency, employers are usually “at will” and I run into a lot of moments where employees are claiming “they can’t DO that!” and, well, yes they can.

      1. Without knowing anything about the specifics of this kind of situation, it’s probably worth pointing out that California law tends to be more employee-friendly in general than just about any other state, and that the traditional common-law concept of “at will” employment really meaning “at will” — i.e., termination is permissible for any reason or no reason, so long as it isn’t for one of the statutorily enumerated reasons — has been eroded more in California than just about anywhere else.

        1. I work in Mass., which is probably even more employee friendly than CA. If there’s a “just about anywhere” exception, it’s here 🙂

    1. Every time I hear about a trans woman being murdered or committing suicide, I lose hope. I feel like death and misery are things that we all anticipate to some degree, whether they are found in our own lives or in the lives of other trans women. That anticipation is manifested in the expectation of people deciding to assault or murder us for existing, in the observation of so few people bothering to fulfil basic standards of humane treatment beyond not brutalizing us (the neglect of which being, as you said, proof of blood on their hands), and even in the contemplation of suicide.

      Many trans women have an intimate connection with death and violence, not in the sense that they collectively wish death and violence upon others (contrary to what the TERFs say), but in the sense that it’s hard to live without ever thinking about their presence in our lives. Like you said, it’s so difficult, if not impossible, to even imagine a world in which we aren’t constituted as among those who either anticipate death/misery or wish for their own (be it self-harm or suicide).

      But in spite of all of that, I try to remain hopeful, and I try to live life to the fullest possible, almost in the rebellious sense of existing in spite of those who tell me to not exist. I want to focus on being there not only for other trans women, but also for myself. And I’m trying to maintain hope that a different, peaceful world will some day become a reality for all trans people. Even if I never live to witness the end of these social conditions, I can at least try my best to deconstruct the self-hatred I have as a trans woman, and encourage others to do the same. And I will try to look at the deaths of fellow trans women not with some dismissive, naive optimism that things aren’t as bad as they really are, but with the recognition that they, too, deserved love and support from others and acknowledgement for who they are before and after death. The same kind treatment that those who are still alive deserve.

      Rest in power, Bri Golec. Though your life was treated as worthless and immoral, it wasn’t and it never will be.

      1. Thanks so much for this comment, Aaliyah. I agree with every word of it.

        I’m feeling really bitter right now that so little attention is paid by the media — by which I mean something far broader than the mainstream media, and include everything including feminists on social media, and the general LGBT media — to all these murders, or to the even larger numbers of suicides and attempted suicides (with the exception of the attention briefly paid to Leelah Alcorn). Tom Leger (whom I used to know about ten years ago) had some very impassioned tweets about that silence, which are worth reading.

        I may not be as personally at risk as many other trans women, because of my age (the abject fear of violence was one of the many reasons I ended up doing nothing when I first thought seriously about transitioning, when I was 22) and the fact that I have both white privilege and “passing privilege” (a/k/a, I’m not visibly trans). But in a better world I wouldn’t have to be so fearful, and wouldn’t have to be so concerned all the time about making sure that in real life, nobody finds out about my history. I’m not 1/100th as open about it in reality, as I am online.

    2. This is the ugly side of family rejection. Domestic violence ending in death. I hope the police clearly state this was hate crime. But I know they didn’t for the Texas couple murdered by their father.

        1. You should’ve seen the posts he deleted. I swear he was probably frothing at the mouth!

          Also, if you read his comments in Comic Book Guy’s voice, it’s hilarious!

Comments are currently closed.