Ethics, Maxims, and activists, Epilogue

Bonjour!

I recently had cause to write a blog article which I entitled, Ethics, Maxims, and Activists.
You can see it here

It pertained to this article in the Daily Lion, which was the source for the piece and all the  related discussion that was to follow. 

I had reason to revisit that blog this evening since one of the main threads contained within it came to something of a conclusion. I'll say no more about that save this:

Quod erat faciendum

&

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

However in the course of revisiting the arguments and my own previous work I made two discoveries:

The original piece that my arguments were based upon is somewhat ambiguous as to the student bodies motives, this then leads to a weakening of the reasoning within my article. Secondly I spotted a byline under the picture in the original article that had been added. 

It reads:

"Editors Note: After evaluation, the school has decided to not change their ceremony"

It would seem that the student body protested against the change to the gowns, but their objections were somewhat different to those which I originally suggested.

Here's a different link to the same story. 

In it David Kilmnick (LGBT network) is quoted as saying:

“Nothing is really being taken away from any student, the students still are able to be their own unique individual and express their talents, except what’s going to happen now is they’re going to be able to do that as one community,” Kilmnick said. “The decision for students to all wear one gown means that there’s unity, there’s safety, there’s inclusivity, and there’s going to be moving forward together in a safe way.”

In light of this I wanted to outline a few points in the context of the arguments pertaining to the ethical nature (or otherwise) of the proposed change and examine whether  the  conclusions that I drew with regard to the ethical nature of the schools action still hold up to scrutiny.

• Firstly is the statement by David Kilmnick above actually true? 
• Did the timing and implementation of the change affect its ethical nature? 
• What are the implication of the outcome of this going forward for LGBT inclusion.

So is the statement above true? 

"Nothing is really being taken away from the students.." 

It seems to me the problem with this initial statement is that it is somewhat obviously untrue and also undermining of the whole argument for change at the same time. What is being taken away from the student body is the historical context of the school colours and the aspirational nature of something that they may have individually looked forward to for some considerable time. Also the "choice" argument applies here. That removal is as real as the removal of choice for the unrepresented LGBT students would've been had no action been taken. The counter argument to that is that the "evil" of discrimination of the LGBT students outweighs the "evil" of the removal of choice for all.  If one accepts this it then confers an ethical premise on the actions of the school as a justification of the "lesser of two evils argument"

But, let us assume the minority LGBT students had approached and asked for a colour change or to be allowed to wear whatever colour they best identify with (A flawed premise for sure when one considers NB but bear with me) This statement can very well be used against the trans inclusively model as for it.

"Wear whatever colour you wish, Nothing is really being taken away from you..."

Thus it inherently misunderstands and misrepresents the argument(s) at hand, which as I stated in my first blog are choice, with perspective and the motive preceding action. 

So, if the initial justification of the action in the above statment is questionable, then what of the rest? Well non of the individual statements that follow are entirely "wrong" per see, but they are inherently weakened by the false premise that precedes them. 

The second point, of timing, is interesting, since other (originally unseen) articles cover the fact that there was only one weeks notice of the change and many families had already bought the original gowns at considerable cost. I suspect many many people would baulk at a last minute change that asks them to swallow a $400 loss, so yes, it's a no brainer this had an effect. This factor is entirely unrelated to the issue of representation and becomes one of financial inconvenience, since its fair to say any last minute change for any reason with similar penalty would illicit a similar response. 

Finally we come the last point, implications for the future. 

The school implemented this badly, in a poorly thought out fashion, and thus the decision to instigate a change on the grounds of representation has been dropped, leaving the status quo in place.

In my initial blog I suggested any perceived benefit brought about by a false premise of inclusivity would be short lived. 

Consider this. 

If inclusivity and representation were at the heart of the issue then consultation s/w/could have begun months in advance, negating the (wholly justifiable) financial argument above. 

We do not know for how long the LGBT school members had been petitioning the school authority to address the issue, but it would seem a last minute change was poorly thought out, and, we might speculate, implemented as a reactive measure - perhaps to a student's long term unheeded requests being marginalised until they "had to be dealt with" 

Whatever the causality, the planned change and its somewhat inevitable failure has now damaged the chances of real inclusivity being addressed in the future at this school, because the argument can be brought forth of "Oh we tried that and it didn't work" It's almost as if the LGBT cause in this instance has snatched defeat from the jaws of potential victory, and thus made the entire battle for true representation that much harder when next fought. 

Both articles lauded the proposed change as a progressive move, and whilst prima facie arguments might support this view, the lack of actual meaningful discourse and organisation to the process gives the lie to that statement. For all the appearance of it being progressive it was anything but.

There are only two conclusions. Either the whole thing was intentionally botched to kill the LGBT representation issue and retain the historical colour references. Or, the school authority is almost criminally incompetent. 

Which option is closest to the truth, I'll leave to your own thoughts.  

"The call"

The call.

Time. Tis endless and formless,

An obvious abundance.

Fill it we shall with thought and deed,

no matter the reason or how slim the need.

We wake, to endeavour to toil and do.

We sleep to recover, then to repeat anew.

An endless processions of bytes and bits

pass by our eyes, under fingertips.

Filling our time with that we don't need

till a call is missed that we failed to heed.

Observed with closed minds, the signs often were

Distracted by working and earning a “share”

“But we didn't know!” rang the voices of many,

“We were too busy just earning next penny!”

“How could we know that doom was at hand?”

“By raising our heads and appraising the land?”

“How could we know that our bubble was false?”

“Or realise soon enough that promise was lost?”

“The rise of destruction was so silent you see”

“So really how aware could you expect us to be?”

American, Russian, British too

Be you Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Jew,

raise up your minds and seek that call,

for on hearing it early,

rests the fate of us all.

Time. Tis endless and formless,

A necessary illusion

Filled it we did with nought and collusion

And when it ran out, like it inevitably would

can we then say:  "we did all that we could?"

Sarah Ellis 2017

Firelight and shadow

Sunday, March, 2017. A little village in the North East of England on Planet Earth.

At Twenty-five minutes past Two in the afternoon.

Today I find myself detached, unable to write much of consequence or focus on any of the larger  projects I have at various stages of completion.

Yet the Sun shines, the weather grows warmer and I get the feeling that just round the corner theres a sea change coming. Spring, it would seem is a great herald of hope.

Yet doubt clings at my mind like an oily residue, I've been here before, with all indications looking favourable, yet I ended disappointed. It takes an act of blind faith on occasion to keep going, to "do" when you feel more "don't".

Often times when we find ourselves in these mental places, it is our friendships that assist in navigation of choppy waters. Our sense of place amongst peers that guides our ship back to calmer seas and a firmer heading.

Sadly, I find myself unable to avail myself of that help this day, thus I turn to the blank page of the internet blog, a keyboard and my own thoughts whilst staring out the window at a sunny, warm and  inviting but ultimately indifferent day.

I am intent on the problem at hand, my detachment. It's causality, and thus its resolution. It would seem that the allegorical story of "Plato's cave" is quite apt.

Pato's cave

But what of myself? Free soul? or returning cave dweller? The answer to that depends on the outcome of the internal conversation between hope, faith, fear and doubt.

Plus, I guess also how hard those people aiding my escape pull on the ropes.

I'll let you know.

Sarah

History, morality and judgement.

So, Martin McGuinness, the recently retired Irish Deputy First minister, has passed away.

Some of my readers may know I spent some time in uniform. My time was mostly after the major PIRA years, although I caught the tale end as it were.

My Mother however, was out in Northern Ireland when it wasn't all that nice. Just 19 yrs old and married to a British soldier. I didn't come along until she was 23, the next posting, and out in Cyprus.

The passing of such a controversial figure as McGuinness put me in mind of the passing of Margaret Thatcher, since many might have had cause to celebrate the death of such a man, as they did our former premier, for very different reasons. Indeed some of my longer serving army colleagues certainly did have some opinions.

A moral dilemma if ever there was one.

On the one hand McGuinness was an outlaw, murderer and responsible for immense suffering.
On the other he was one of the first people with the drive and crucially sufficient clout in the PIRA to bring about the peace process we now have.

Who the man was perceived to be, and peoples subsequent opinions of him, are shaped not just by what he did, but when he did it in relation to our own lives. There are people alive today in Ireland who wont remember the troubles, and thus remember "that bloke on the telly" as one politician amongst many. My own daughter is 13, and thankfully has no concept of living under such conditions. Similarly there are also those who for very intense personal reasons cannot forget those troubles and see McGuinness in a very different light.

Consider the first and second world wars, or other engagements that the British armed forces have been involved with over the years, many of which don't actually have the title or status of "war" but nonetheless lead to death and suffering. When we remember these distant and long ago battles, we often remember those who fought, however justly or unjustly, and died on both sides of the given conflict. Spitfire or Messcherschmidt ace, British or German, free french or Vichy,, military or civilian alike.

I can only speak for myself on these occasions, but the overriding emotion is one - perhaps - not of pride, but of regret. Regret for man's continuing capacity for inhumanity to his fellow man, and that we seemingly rarely learn the lessons inherent.

I wonder with, the Irish "Troubles" is the grief, anger and resentment at all that was done, on both side of the issue, still too near? To close to living memory?

Those that have lived through armed conflict or seen its impact first hand, up close, know the cost. Some front line troops much, much much more than others, including I have to say, myself. As I once said to an officer many years ago, I was there to patch up the holes other regiments made, thus my view was less dramatic than others. However the cost is not one borne exclusively by those in any given uniform, rather it is paid by all who fight for what they believe to be right and just, how so ever they may choose to "do" and "believe".

To slightly miss quote Protagoras, one of the greek Sophists who was around way back in circa 450BC

"A man is the measure of all things"

History then will Judge the actions of the man, For I find that oddly, I cannot. But I am reminded of an article I read recently about Joe Biden, where he gave an insight into how he deals with extremely divisive, sometime downright discriminatory policy in US politics.

"Question a man's judgement, never his motives"

McGuinness' motives might not have changed all that much, but his judgement sure did and for that I am, and I'm sure in time many others may eventually be able to be, thankful. 

For all the 3,600. 

S

One does not have to know the path, to walk the path.

Morality. Right and Wrong. Ethics.


That's the next chapter in the book I'm currently reviewing, Nigel Warburtons "The basics of  philosophy"

I say "reviewing", what I really mean is reading with a thoughtful mind as a relative novice and forming ideas on this thing called philosophy.

But what is Philosophy? It occurred to me I hadn't really covered that, so here's a potted version.

The word itself, if you're not aware comes from an amalgamation of the greek for love, "philo" and 'Sophos" which is wisdom. so Philosophy is literally a word meaning

"lover of wisdom" 

The word has two contexts in modern language use. It can mean an idea or code that one holds to:

"My friend's philosophy is never to drink whilst driving, as it risks spillage"

or as its the case with Nigel's and my own use of the word, It can refer to a search for the meaning behind certain viewpoints,  using rational, critical, and (crucially), open mined, debate about any given topic.

So, as one might imagine the practice of discussion and arguing one's point is a distinct skill that a philosopher must embrace, hone and polish, as are the mental disciplines of both critical and uncritical rational thought, analysis of the underpinning concepts of a given statement and the presentation of that analysis in the form of arguments.

What Philosophy is perhaps not, at least in my view, is a means to change the other persons mind in a debate as a winner/loser scenario. Although of course one or other of the participants might choose to change their position on a topic as a result of the debate, but that's an effect, not the goal, therefore not quite the same thing.

If knowledge could be said to be the product of observation, then Wisdom could be said to be born of  the thoughtful examination of that which we observe, namely the knowledge we've acquired.

After all, the internet is an abundant seemingly limitless source of knowledge, but it can hardly be said to be wise in this sense.

So, if philosophy's true purpose isn't to "persuade", or "brow beat" or "Win" what could it's purpose be? In my view it's simply this:

To make one think, and in the thinking, navigate your own "Path of Sophos". 

Or then again......

A metaphor for life

I often come back to this quote, as it's a deceptively powerful metaphor and so bears repeating: 

“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. 

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.” 

― Bruce Lee

Ethics, Maxims, and Activists.

Hello!

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