Today's foray into philosophical thought continues with a few meandering musings on ethics, maxims, otherwise known as motivations, and activists. In this specific case activists in the field of gender diversity, but broadly speaking any area of activist work, be it animal rights, nuclear disarmament, even philosophy, or whatever you might envisage.
Recently there was a case over in a US college where the graduation ceremony came under scrutiny for reasons of Gender Identity. In essence it boiled down to a long standing tradition of girls wearing gold gowns and boys wearing green gowns. This as you might imagine can be somewhat problematic to those who transition, be it from one side of the gender conversation to the other, or somewhere in the middle, whether between the two or neither of each.
So. The school principle asked the student body what it's member's wanted, and it appears that the feedback received was for trans people to wear the colour they identified with. Simples.
But wait a minute, theres only two choices, so what of those who are partially or wholly in the category of both or neither?
So the school now has a choice of routes it might take, given the wishes of the student body, that all gender identities be recognised.
- Introduce a few new colour options for those who associate outside a "two party system"
- Decree everyone wear the same colour, regardless of gender be it cis, trans,binary or otherwise.
Here's where it gets a little unclear dependent on ones viewpoint. What is the ethical option for the school here? Do as the student body asks, or make everyone the same by way of elimination of the colour difference that brought up the question in the first place? It could be argued that the first solution addresses and solves the problem, where as on the other hand the second, dependent on its method of application could do so, from some perspectives, or is it merely removing the problem while presenting no actual solution to the issue of recognition? Furthermore, gender identity is for some a private matter, as such is it ethical to broadcast this diversity?
Thus we arrive at the questions of perspective, motive, and choice.
Choice first. If the students choose to wear a robe that celebrates their diversity in a public way then that is their choice and thus carries no ethical implication in so far as privacy concerns. If they wish to do so but are denied that choice that would be ethically questionable at best or discriminatory at worst.
Perspective. Some of the student body might be ok with the one colour solution or a two colour solution, since it fits their requirements. But hold on, if it unethically disadvantages the choice of other groups then that too would also surely be morally questionable? Indeed it's the whole premise on which this argument of representation is based.
Motive. "Why" is either option chosen? Was it to celebrate diversity, promote inclusion, or simply remove an administration headache that the school didn't really want to deal with? Who's wishes are to be taken into consideration here? Are all views given parity or are some of the stakeholders in this question of representation accorded greater value? If accord must be reached can it be done so as to cause the minimum disruption to the minimum number of people, yet still be ethically sound?
let's look at each scenario and see who the winners and losers are:
The one colour solution,
First of all the problem is which colour? If one choses the historically male associated green colour then its arguable those who don't identify in that way are unethically disadvantaged even discriminated against. Similarly so if one chooses the historically female associated colour. Those who identify out side the binary are adversely affected in both scenarios. A problem with this approach is therefore that it could be said to erase the gender representation of for all, and removes choice. Perhaps then one introduces an entirely new none gender associated colour scheme? Ok, that works better, but still doesn't allow choice or representation, although it admittedly removes the historical gendered connotations thus the potential for individuals to experience dysphoric complications arising from a one colour solution could be lessened as a result.
The two colour solution
This "could" work by virtue of allowing students to wear the robe they most closely identified with, but clearly doesn't deal in any way with the group of individuals who are both, neither or fluid. Thus again denying them choice, representation and of course leaving open the question of discrimination.
The multi colour solution.
This presents an option for male, female and NB identifying people, perhaps with variations on the NB that reflect where people might see themselves to be on the oft quoted gender continuum. It allows choice for all, and crucially deny's none of the groups representation. Each group can celebrate it's individuality without adversely impacting on another group, thus the need for compromise is lessened. The down side of this solution may be that it's the most complicated and costly to implement and requires the highest level of engagement with the school authorities.
So what did the school authorities actually do?
They imposed a single colour solution whereby all students are to wear the colour that was previously associated with male identifying students.
Consider the words "imposed" and "solution"
The result, perhaps unsuprisingly, was that the student body was unhappy, since most of the students including cis, trans and NB ones did not want this course of action. Imposition of an unwanted solution on an unwilling student body unsurprisingly caused dissent. This was then directed at the trans and NB people, since they were seen as the drivers for the need to change anything in the first place.
Was this a "solution" in the true sense, or did it just paper over the issue so the school authorities could ignore it and move on claiming to be diversity inclusive?
It's at this point "motive" once more rears its head.
The 18th century philosopher Emmanuel Kant described the intent behind any action as a "Maxim" "A thought" if you will, that is the reasoning behind any action. So for example the "good samaritan' might have been acting on either of the maxims "help thy neighbour" or "help thy neighbour and you shall be rewarded" Two very different things in terms the ethical nature of the action brought about by the maxim, even though the action itself might be near identical in each case.
So what was the "maxim" in the case of the school authority?
"Celebrate gender diversity, promoting freedom of gender expression regardless of gender identity"
This seems doubtful as it would logically lead one to choose a three or more colour system, or the one colour system that is unrelated to the gendered colour markers of history, although as previously stated that second option deny's choice thus is poorer fit to this mxim
How about:
"Act in the best interests of the students, to minimise sources of discrimination based on gender diversity"
Nope. Since that is arguable on the basis of the chosen system being an imposed and unwanted one that it discriminates against a huge number of students, specifically non male identifying, be they cis or trans alike, NB or otherwise.
Having given this some thought the only maxim I can come up with that adequately covers the imposition of an unwanted male associated single colour scheme is this:
"Make them all wear the same colour, and make it green since the school colour is green"
or the longer version...
"Make them all wear the same colour, so we appear inclusive and gender conforming, Make the colour Green since the schools colours are green, and the problem will go away. If anyone complains then we can shift the blame onto the transgender student body"
As one can see, either version of this maxim is ethically questionable, since it puts school and public perception above student welfare and true parity of gender diversity. Although the flawed (IMO) "solution" that this maxim gives rise to could actually be argued to benefit a small number of students, namely Male leaning NB, and/or Cis male, it still disadvantages everyone outside that demographic. Also, it's the imposition on an unwilling student body that is the crux here as I said before. were it not imposed, but requested by the students, then arguably things could be viewed differently, although still not without flaws. But I'll come back to this point.
So where do the activists come into this?
This whole (it has to be said relatively minor) issue of clothing raised a discussion amongst the trans community in my local area. Myself and few others discussed the ethical issues surrounding the schools actions. However some in the community viewed the schools single colour policy as a positive. These people were predominantly, though not exclusively those that identified in the NB area of the gender spectrum and in some cases actually worked within gender diversity teaching provision.
It became apparent when I attempted to put forward the argument I've just explained in this article that it really wasn't up for debate in the minds of some of these individuals. To the point where I myself was accused outright of being something of a transphobic individual with internalised issues.
Understandably as you might imagine, I had few "issues" with this, and it put me in mind of yet another quote from a favourite thinker of mine
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
When Socrates said those words he was referring to the basic human trait of slinging insults when the other party has presented an insurmountable argument. I have written about the dangers inherent in taking too stringent a no platforming standpoint, and in accusing me of biased thinking and poor judgment this was a case in point. It was simply an attempt to shut the discussion down, perhaps one might suggest due to perceived seniority of social position and knowledge base, but that's conjecture.
As you might imagine. It didn't work. Such tactics rarely do. As ever I asked myself "Why?" "Why is it the case that others wish to shut down the argument?"
After some reflection, the answer seemed quite obvious, so much so i at first discounted it. The small number of individuals that the ethically questionable actions of the school does "appear" to benefit is indeed the NB identifying students. So one could, as these people did, view this is as "good" outcome.
There are models of ethics that subscribe to "good" and "bad" regardless of consequences. Specifically religious type models. Other more commonly understood models of ethics are motive based, as in Kant's view which I outline above or consequential, best known as utilitarian arguments. (Bentham and Mill being two proponents). In this case the actions of the school authorise fail both a Motive based approach as demonstrated, and also I'd argue consequential one, be it positive or negative. Thus in essence the only remaining justification for taking a position of describing the outcome as a good action is "because I believe it to be so"
But I'd suggest this is false/flawed logic. For without fully examining the intent behind the schools actions, - those "maxims" upon which they were working - acceptance of a perceived benefit is a fools bargain, for it is transient and without real substance. Additionally, since the other members of the student body are wholly disadvantaged in terms of their choice and representation within this scenario, then those who see this as a "good" outcome are championing the very thing that they would actually decry were the situation reversed and NB/other people excluded. Why did they attempt to shut me down? In my own humble opinion, it was so that they didn't have to contend with the ethical holes in their own argument, and ironically, deal with their own internal bias.
So, that set me thinking. (again? yeah things do that)
Surely one of the central tenants of being an activist and agent of discourse, change, bi partisan progress and societal evolution is to be open mined and to dispationately critically evaluate what is put before you? To look beyond the obvious?
The requirement to do so and be practiced at it is the reason why student philosophers/lawyers and those who engage in professional discourse often indulge in framing arguments for positions with which they actually disagree.
One could reasonably say that any given activist has an end goal in mind, thus they are inherently predisposed to perceive actions that move towards and align with that goal as positive. If we accept this premise, then any activist, in any field, must have an agenda, and therefore cannot be deemed impartial.
This is not a problem as long as they remain aware of this trait & actively compensate for it. After all we all fight for what we believe in.
BUT.
It would be nice to think that we humans could all do this activist stuff ethically, logically and insightfully without resorting to knee-jerk reactions, criticisms of opposing viewpoints and down right unjustifiable insults. Particularly when that criticism is based on well founded argument, from inside our own diverse membership.. It is this "knee jerk stuff" that tears the trans movement, be it binary NB gender queer or whatever, apart from the inside. It invites the question:
How effectively can we discuss issues with our real detractors?
We do not exist in a vacuum, particularly in America, where this decision was likely taken by a white, cis gender guy, who may or may not have had sympathetic views on "gender transition". Believing that our own "informed" view is the underpinning motivation of every seemingly good outcome is a grave grave error, as is uncritical acceptance of the false progress born of indifference to our diversity. As a result every "success", no matter how well intentioned or hard fought, born from that error will surely end in failure, for any change will be short lived, easily reversed and superficial.
NB as an identity grouping is the most marginalised of our trans trait human characteristics it deserves to be championed. However that does not confer on those who champion it's rights the legitimacy to do so at the expense of other trans trait identities, binary or otherwise and, as in this case, certain members of the cis gender student body. Indeed the mistake is to believe that Trans/Cis, Binary and NB are mutually exclusive at all. For even a robe has a middle and two ends, regardless of its length or colour.
Until next time, keep talking, and whatever you do, remember:
"Many of the truths we cling to depends greatly on our point of view"
Ben Kenobi,
So change it regularly, lest you believe your view is the only one possible, or worthwhile
tata,
Sarah.
Edit, Since writing this there were further outcomes. You can read the Epilogue to this wee story Here
No comments:
Post a Comment