Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bigotry. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

False Dichotomies and Binary Thinking

 
(Originally published on LinkedIn)

The false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents two options as the only available choices in a matter when at least one other option exists. When parents have toddlers, they're told to give them two choices for simplicity, so that they feel they have some control over their life, some power, but they aren't overwhelmed with options.

This is also how sex and gender are presented to us: you're either male or you're female. For most people, that isn't a problem. They readily agree with the sex they were assigned at birth, and they take pride in either conforming or not conforming to their gender roles. Not conforming is really only a pride point for those assigned female at birth because aspiring to be male is socially acceptable, but the feminine is seen as weak, "silly," and undesirable. Anything attached to the feminine is immediately considered only for those with a vulva. When something is attached to the masculine, it is considered a sign of strength and power, and thus, all are invited to participate--most of the time.

From before birth, from the moment parents get a glimpse of their offspring's genitals, they begin socializing them to either the feminine or the masculine. Expectations are lain in the moment that genitals are announced. "It's a girl!" is followed by per-condemnation of her sexual agency, sympathy expressed to the father as though a girl is a disappointment that can only bring stress. This is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophesy if the parents so choose. "It's a boy!" is followed by dinosaurs and sports and dreams that he'll be a doctor or lawyer or something big and important.

But there's a third occurrence that brings silence. No joyful declaration of the genitals unless the doctor has already decided how they are going to alter them without consent. "Intersex." Neither male nor female. Perhaps more one or the other. Many intersex individuals are missexed as male or female because their external genitalia is all that is used to determine how they will be socialized.

A growing body of support for intersex people condoning the non-consensual body modification is also attempting to bring light to the existence of intersex people, often offensively and inaccurately termed "hermaphrodite," as though they are an insect. Few people would deny the legitimacy of red-haired individuals, but they are only 2% of the population--the same percentage as intersex people. But intersex people force a reminder on society that their aggressive sexing and gendering of each other is often inaccurate. If not, then there would be a name all people know for the third sex, and a third gender, and the same joy (with maybe a little trepidation for possible medical complications) would be present in the announcement, "It's an [intersex baby]!"

Still, some acknowledgement that intersex people exist is present in the collective consciousness. But rather than see them as valid and natural, they are treated as an aberration, something to apologize for. A neutral pronoun identifier is rejected, and they are expected to conform to whatever sex they were ultimately assigned and blend in as one of the two dominant genders. Their own sex may even be hidden from them deliberately by their parents or the doctor that incorrectly sexed them at birth. They are an affront to the false dichotomy of sex.

Worse, there are those whose genital expression and reproductive systems match a chromosomal pattern that has been deemed male or female who know that they are not the gender they were told to conform to. Transgender.

There is an interesting story out there of a little boy whose mother decided that she wanted a girl so badly that she gave birth unassisted, assigned him female at birth, dressed him in girl's clothing and told everyone he was a girl, sent him to an all-girls' school, and he grew up believing that he was one. He said the he thought that maybe his penis would fall off when he reached puberty so that he would look like other girls. He socialized female.  But then one day, it was all blown open when a teacher removed his dress to protect him from a hot liquid spill and saw that he was male. Immediately, he was removed from his home, and everyone was in an uproar, calling it abuse. What he called abuse was what followed: having his hair cut against his will, being told to behave as a boy and develop masculine interests that he simply did not have, until he was finally placed with a family that allowed him to be himself. He concluded that he was definitely male, but his interests were still considered feminine--and he was still happy with himself.

Transgender children grow up in the same situation, only their genitals cannot announce to someone that they are being forced into an unnatural situation for themselves. Instead, a conspiracy forms around them to ignore that they are being harmed even more than that little boy was because no one will rescue them from the situation. In more and more cases now, parents are realizing that their children's genital configuration is not more important than their health and well-being. Children whose expressed gender identity is honored grow up happier and healthier, even if they end up being cisgender.

However, this is still primarily granted to female to male and male to female individuals. Female to third gender and male to third gender children are lost. They are given a false dilemma: are you male or are you female? Neither is a valid answer that is not being acknowledged enough. There are many nonbinary identities, from fluid (going from male to female and back) to agender (lacking gender) to bigender (simultaneously both), and more. Growing up, some of these children may present as fully transgender, or they may present as gender nonconforming within their assigned sex. "Tomboy" is a false identifier that some trans boys and nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB) can cling to for a better way to tolerate or escape the pain and/or confusion of being misgendered.

Cisgender girls will use their own identification as a tomboy to de-legitimize the experiences of trans AFAB people, claiming that because their gender confusion vanished, it must do the same for anyone else who experiences it. This is an aggressive form of transphobia that is used to prevent medical care of trans boys and nonbinary AFAB children rather than acknowledge that there is no harm at all in giving children the safety and support to explore their genders until they are able to give words to their own identity. If a third gender were automatically acknowledged, yes, there would be more third gender children because they already exist, and they would then have the words to say so. Just as naming anything leads to discovery of more of that thing.

This isn't some new experiment, either. Third genders have existed in many cultures throughout history with no cultural pain. It is confusing why ours is so insistent on denying something that has existed as long as humans have had a sense of gender identity. The best explanation seems to be that dominant groups simply will not tolerate outsiders. Once schema is formed, it wants to be defended. The only cure for this is to establish societal change that adds third gender into the schema children are programmed with, but it is the adults that resist this, that reinforce the myth that there are only two sexes, only two genders, and that there is no difference between what is between one's legs and what is in one's heart and soul.

Cisgender people may be under the mistaken belief that transgender girls (assigned male at birth--AMAB) exist because they are told that dolls and dresses are for girls, and those "boys" are interested in such things and therefore confused that they are girls. That simply isn't true. Many boys, both cis boys and trans (AFAB) boys enjoy dolls and dresses, but they avoid them in their attempt to conform to stereotypical gender roles. Trans boys may be socialized female, but many recognize that males are supposed to behave in a certain way, and they internalize it. Trans (AMAB) girls do the same. They may show more interest in feminine iconography--dolls, dresses, makeup--simply because they want to be seen as what they are: girls. For quite some time, in order to transition, one had to prove that they were female enough to be acknowledged medically. Preferring pants and sports might get a sporty trans girl denied legitimacy. The lack of connection with gendered objects and clothes exists in trans people just as it exists in cis people. Just as there are cis girls who love sports and wear "boyshort" underwear and hate makeup and dresses, there are trans girls who feel the same. That doesn't make either group male.

But what about the third gender? Why do they know that they are neither male nor female? It is the same way that cisgender and binary transgender people know that they are male or female. In the past, Western world third gender people did what they could with what they had, just as all trans people had to. It may have been easier to be "eccentric" post-Humanism, in the Renaissance and beyond. For binary trans people, it was simpler to move somewhere that no one knew them and assume their true gender while hiding their assigned birth sex. Records of people who did this exist. This is how the medical establishment insisted trans people transitioned at one point, but that is no longer the case. With the growing body of evidence that nonbinary people have been erased via language rather than scarcity by establishing them into language, there is hope that in the future, this is a false dichotomy that will eventually be abandoned as unscientific, inaccurate, and antiquated, just as many sexist notions throughout history have been left behind.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Rant regarding "Gay Lifestyle"

This rant was originally posted on my personal facebook page, but has been updated for this entry.


Pictured: Not a lifestyle. Just a couple.
Being gay is not a "lifestyle."

It isn't a choice.

I'm. Gay.

No, not 100%. I'm about 80%. I didn't choose to fall in love with a guy any more than I chose to fall in love with my girlfriend before him. Love isn't a choice. (nor am I complaining -- I love my husband, and am very aware of how awesome it is that he loves me, too)

A "lifestyle" is a choice. Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being a bigot is a lifestyle. Being a paleontologist is a lifestyle (for some). Being a biker is a lifestyle. Being someone who loves to wear little hats (and does) is a lifestyle.


Pictured: some people's obsession. Credit: stockxchng

Being gay is like having a great metabolism or tiny toenails or good skin or a lighter beard than the hair on your head. It's a part of you that you have no control over.

Even being Bisexual/Pansexual, you still don't. have. a. Choice. People think you have more choices, but really, no. I mean, you have a choice for who you sleep with, sure, but not who you fall in love with and want to marry. That stuff's just going to happen.

Gay people have lifestyles, like everyone else. Some revolve around their sexuality, but their sexuality itself is not a lifestyle. Hell, being married is a lifestyle. But it's no different for a straight couple than a gay couple, outside there being only one gender. 

Sure, maybe the married gay couple down the street in house 21b has a different marriage style than the heterosexual married couple in house 25a. So what? So might the other heterosexual married couple across the street in house 26. That doesn't have anything to do with their (any of these hypothetical couples') sexual preference -- it has to do with their relationship preferences.

So when you're 'disapproving' of someone being gay, you're 'disapproving' of a part of who they are just like someone who 'disapproves' of someone being black/Hispanic/Asian/First Nation/white/Italian/German/Irish/Korean/Luba/Jamaican/Maya/Cherokee/British, etc. etc. It's not racism, but these statements are equally bigoted:

"I don't approve of them being black."

"I don't approve of their [a gay person's] lifestyle [in reference to their being gay]."

Sure, you can disapprove of their actual lifestyle. Say, you don't approve of gamers or gardeners or church-goers (don't even get me started on the number of churches that are open and welcoming to gay members of the congregation). That just makes you douchey, but not necessarily bigoted (disapproving of someone's lifestyle of dog fighting or creating crush videos or participating in modern slavery would be different, obviously).


Disapproving of his wardrobe choices: personal taste. Disapproving of him being a drag queen: douchey.

Stop calling 'being gay' a 'lifestyle.' Just stop it. It's not. End rant.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Musing on Hate

Hate is a loaded word. When I "hate" I'm thinking of something I absolutely abhor to the point of pain. Or rage; fury. I was raised that "I hate you" means "I'm so fucking mad at you that I want to hurt you." My sister took that phrase in a different way. As a result, I try very hard to get that word out of my vocabulary, but there is one time where I will use it.

Hate is racism. Hate is heterosexism. Hate is fat-phobia, ablism, agism... any -ism that places a person in a position of superiority over another. This picture popped up in my feed on Facebook and inspired this post today:

Courtney Blair holds a sign during National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A on Richmond Avenue in support for love, equality, and the real definition of family Friday, Aug. 3, 2012, in Houston. (Cody Duty / Houston Chronicle) Photo: Cody Duty / © 2011 Houston Chronicle

Unfortunately, many people don't believe this. Their definition of "hate" is the traditional that involves strong emotions. They insist that since they are not feeling strong emotions, the word is not applicable.

That's semantics.

It's a simpler word to describe an idea that is prevalent throughout human history. Just because you have never perpetrated a legally defined Hate crime does not mean that you have not perpetuated the ideas, beliefs and motives that cause them.

We're not talking about the emotion. We're talking about "separate but equal." We're talking about discrimination. We're talking about making second class citizens in a country that is supposed to be free of such things. We're talking about saying that a family that is dissimilar to your own is not a family worthy of the same rights.

You cannot say that someone else's family is making yours lesser by its existence and legal recognition. You are making their family lesser by attempting to do so. You have become the problem. You may not have beaten the gay boy in the halls, but something you are saying was once said to the bullies that did.

Racism is a pervasive parasite in this culture that is still rampant today, if not as visible if you're white. I have plenty of mixed-race families or ethnic minority families that are my friends and when I hear about their children having Hate words thrown at them... it makes me rage.

If you've ever read the Help (regardless of your feelings of the "Mammy" feel) and just wanted to punch those women in the face as they sat there with their separate-but-equal 'acceptable racism' / 'social racism' comments, but turned around and said that gay people should just agree to 'civil unions' regardless of what their religion says about gay marriage (deal with the wiki link, it was a fast, easy collection) is the exact same thing. We just haven't been raised to think that way... yet.

I'm not talking about those of you who think the government should not be a part of marriage at all. You guys go to your Libertarian happy place. That is not how this country works. Marriage has been a civil right and a religious rite for its entire existence in every religion and country in which it is practiced. Saying that it's exclusive to Christianity ignores that it existed in countries where Christianity had not reached or was outright banned (such as Japan in the feudal ages). Saying that the government should not be involved is... Well, it's not logical. I do agree that the government should make no laws dictating the romantic pairings between consenting adults.

It doesn't click in the minds of those practicing the discrimination that that is what they are doing. I get that. You don't consider yourself part of the problem because you don't have negative feelings about gay people or their "lifestyle" (or worse, "choice"). You don't want anything bad to happen to them and you don't condone the violence (or, some people, at least not out loud) done to them. You just don't want 'them' to be allowed to marry.

That is a very similar thought process to those who didn't want 'them' marrying 'outside their kind' back in the 50s (interracial relationships). Interfaith relationships have also been deemed 'wrong' by various churches.

Children learn these ideas and they process them, then regurgitate them to their peers. The first time I heard the word "homosexual" it was preceding the word "wrong." It was by a peer. I internalized it. I played homophobic. I parroted my peers because I had never even come across the concept, really. Sure, two chicks kissed on Roseanne. I didn't understand it. I didn't understand why I wanted to kiss other girls. But because something about me was Wrong, I immediately buried it and learned very quickly the amount of vitriol my peers had for 'that kind of people.'

That's right. The exact same words used by racists. I heard sentiments that ranged from 'they just need God to fix them' to 'they should all die.' By my friends. While I struggled in confusion, wondering how God could make me Wrong. So I told God to go fuck Itself and became an atheist.

It made me so miserable. It wasn't right. It wasn't who I was and it wasn't what I believed. Eventually, I realized that these people were not speaking for God. I wasn't listening to God, I was listening to brainwashed children recite what they believed God had said/felt.


These children I went to school with are now probably parents. My children will not be exposed to theirs if I can help it. Regardless of their sexual orientations, they will not grow up to be bigots. And yes, wanting 'separate but equal' (or worse) treatment of someone else makes you a bigot.

Those sentiments trickle down from marriage into any relationships. And your child could very well be gay. Or their cousin, best friend or just a classmate. And they hear you.

Who knows how many of these children heard those very things from their parents or other loved ones:

lesbian suicide
What do we all have in common?
We loved. We felt happiness and pain,
but more pain than happiness.
We all took our own lives.



Thursday, August 19, 2010

Not all of any group are the same

You know, I hate to think that anyone I know is ignorant enough to blame all adherents of a religion for an extremist group's actions (or all members of a race for a few individual's actions), but I know a lot of different kinds of people. Now I need to rant some.

Right now, there is a hot, huge debate over building a Mosque in New York (btw, one tower has already been rebuilt and as second should be finished in 2011, as one of the tallest towers in the world, on "ground zero" and 3 more are going to be built when the economy is recovered) in place of an old Burlington Coat Factory. I personally don't care one way or another whether a worship house of any kind--church, chapel, cathedral, synagogue, mosque, mandir, temple, kingdom hall, meeting house, hof, jinja, gurdwara, etc.--is built anywhere. But I am sad at knowing that my "friends" are hateful and ignorant.

Let's look at a few things here.

1. Al-Queda is not the pope of Islamists. Their actions are not sanctioned. In fact, they are facists that are at war with other Muslims because they are violent extremists. Not saying that Islam has a clean record by any means--they have the highest number of martyrs on record and some of the worst hate crimes. But that has nothing to do with individual American Muslims.

2. Americans can't seem to tell the difference between a Muslim and a Sikh, as evidenced by the bombing of a Hindu temple and the murder of an innocent man, a Sikh, simply because they wore turbans on September 15th and 17th. So, rather than have anything behind their hate, they focus on one symbol and attack. Wow. Fred Phelps wields a cross--should I blame anyone wearing a cross for his hate? Or the Son of Sam? Jeffery Dahmer?

"On TV a woman said she had interviewed more serial killers, just after they were caught, than any other person. She said "when you ask a serial killer questions like "Why did you murder this moral, loving married person with children?" "Didn’t you think of how terrible this would be to her husband, her children, her parents?" Almost all serial killers start quoting one verse after another from the Christian Bible. This shows most serial killers had strong religious upbringing, have been studying the bible for years and were still very Christian religious when they were murdering."

3. 'Muslim organizations in the United States were swift to condemn the attacks on 9/11 and called "upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families". Top organizations include: Islamic Society of North America, American Muslim Alliance, American Muslim Council, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Circle of North America, and the Shari'a Scholars Association of North America. Along with massive monetary donations, many Islamic organizations launched blood drives and provided medical assistance, food, and shelter for victims.'1

4. America's hands are FAR from clean. Let's look at some numbers--The 9-11 terrorists claimed 2,995 lives. 2 million deaths were directly attributed specifically to Americans of Africans as we enslaved them. America claimed 500,000 lives through firebombs and 166,000 plus 80,000 lives through nuclear attack in Japan only 65 years ago.
How would you like to be held responsible for those lives, having had nothing to do with it?


5. Christian hands are far from clean. Let's start with the four different Inquisitions that have been held with unknown death tolls because mostly, they were kept shrouded by fear of death. The 40,000-100,000 deaths of innocent persons through witch hunts from 1480 to 1700 alone. The Crusades ring a bell? Yeah, there were at least nine of them. Ireland?
How do those lives sit on your shoulders? Do you like being held accountable for the crimes of others in your religion? Or those existing on the fringe as extremists?


6. Bigotry during and following wars is nothing new. Those claiming the side of being "against" Muslims and/or Arabs are in good company with those who hated the Japanese, Koreans, black people, British, etc. after various wars. Just in America alone, of course (not bigotry--the whole world suffers--but just talking about bigotry IN America).

7. Saying that there should be no mosque in New York is the same as saying there should be no churches, chapels or cathedrals in the United States--after all, Christians came and slaughtered the native population in the name of "civilization" and most certainly committed terrorism against the Abenaki, Algonquin, Apache, Blackfoot, Chadwickian, Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Hopi, Iroquois, Lakota Sioux, Mahicans (also Mohicans), Mohave, Mohawk, Navajo, Nipmuc, Ojibwa, Paiute, Seminole, Seneca, Sioux, Mik, Wyandottes, Zuni, and Neilorw peoples, amongst others.

Lots more could be said on this, but in the end, I don't want to read any more. It's very hard, reading about these kinds of things and hate, to believe that the dirty in the ocean of humanity is only a drop. The sheer numbers of people murdered by focusing on this kind of garbage is depressing and sickening.

This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution--how would those people feel about how their descendants have continued the tradition that they attempted to end centuries ago?

Americans--it's all about us. Don't get me wrong, I love being American (and hell, I'm part Cherokee, so I'm more American than most of the people having this debate), but sometimes I see why the rest of the world is disgusted by us. People talk about 9-11 being the worst atrocity ever and while it was a horrible crime, it doesn't even compare to real atrocities.

What could be worse? It makes me sick when people seriously ask this, but they do. Since they've forgotten history, here's just a very tiny bit:

4,000 Cherokee and 2,500–6,000 Choctaw died on the Trail of Tears (that's 6,500-10,000 innocent people who died under horrible conditions). That's a small atrocity that can compare a little.

Rwanda's death toll was an estimated 800,000 people. That's a real atrocity.

The Holocaust death toll was 6 Million. (Hitler claimed that concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much to his studies of English and United States history)

30 to 60 million Africans died being enslaved from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.


Why can't people just accept diversity? I only know one Muslim myself and he is a very nice guy who is non-violent down to his own family. Just like most American Muslims, he was horrified by 9-11 and had zero to do with it.

The point of the Mosque is NOT to worship the assholes that murdered nearly 3000 people in 2001, but to worship a religion as valid as any Christian religion and to bring a community center (a Muslim YMCA of sorts) to the area. The mosque is only a small part--the plan includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare services, art exhibitions, bookstore, culinary school, and a food court.

Interestingly, while the majority oppose its building, the majority also say that they have the right to do so. Many families of 9-11 victims have even said that they welcome it as "an opportunity for Muslims to demonstrate peaceful Islamic values."

Like I said, I don't really have an opinion on it being built--I see both sides of the argument. What's got me upset is the bigoted comments about Muslims in general. I hate bigotry of any kind. Blaming all Muslims for the atrocities of a few. It's tired. Can we please stop getting behind every "Let's hate these people" campaign that comes along?