Created as a spin off of the older Spoken Sprocket Cycling blogs that I've written, Stubbornly Optimistic is all about life, philosophy and positivity in the face of our everyday challenges. The intent is to kindle thought, discussion and exploration of ideas through my own musings and those of yourselves, the readers. Have any feedback? hit the twitter link and let me know!
In todays blog: Politics. So if you're of delicate constitution(al mindset) .. you've been warned! :-)
So, Scotlands first minister is going to ask for a Section 30 if she gets the backing of the Scottish parliament.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn suggests a vote should go ahead but quotes a labour party position at odds with that statement.
Mrs May is unlikely to want this to happen (if it does), before Brexit, but then effective, binding and lasting brexit negotiations can't really be concluded without the Scottish question being settled.
It would appear safe to say then that we live in changing and unpredictable times. The once solid generational truths now can no longer be taken for certainties
What is Democracy?
Scotland voted via referendum convincingly to remain in the EU, yet narrowly to remain in in the UK. The UK as a whole, via the same process voted narrowly to leave the EU.
This then is the conundrum of modern day politics. To do "the will" of one "people" one must be seen to "ignore" the will of other "people". On the one hand there is just cause to ask the Scottish people what they wish for their future generation, yet in doing so there is great risk to life as we have known it on these isle's for generations.
To deny the Scots a say given the monumental change in the political equation since they were last asked dooms them to follow aboard the lone ship of brexit, not as willing crew, but unwilling stowaways bound to the ships fate but somewhat powerless to direct its course since the tiller is firmly held in the resolute hands of Westminster, and they haven't seen fit to tell even the first class passengers the destination.
It seems to me, as the casual observer, that the wielders of the reigns of power are now at odds. Each of them serving the more local members of their support base. This isn't in and of itself a bad thing. However due to timing and to some extent co-incidences that one might call synchronicity, it's resulted in a perfect storm where each of those "local" interests are now mutually exclusive.
So how scared or concerned are people? Well....again this mostly comes down to local concern. In many cases wholly justifiable. "will my benefits cease" can I still get EU assistance for my business, will my job be secure?.. can I afford a bed/food/house/car/bills (delete as appropriate)
How does this current state of affairs happen, you may ask?
It seems that as a wholly self benevolent individualistic human nature marches towards "freedom" and it's inevitable "triumph" in failing to learn its own limitations, so the community & social bonds of benevolence for others and shared endeavour for moral purpose that held together generations before us continue to become weakened, stretched, taught and thus begin to fracture.
Then of course other bonds take their place, ones of shared lineage, place of birth, of world view and (again) self interest. Accent, language and borders, us and and them become talking points. We begin slowly to "other" those who don't share our immediate needs, and who see the world as a different array of colours to our own perception. None of this occurs maliciously of course, it all benevolent, well meaning and peaceful. (ish)
Until someone arrives to take advantage. That's game changer right there.
So, am I "for" a 2nd Scottish referendum?
I do believe if the first minister gets her approval then Westminster "should" "allow" it. For to do otherwise would delegitimise the narrow voting margin by which brexit is touted as the will of the people. (since it was similar narrow margin percentages involved in the Scottish independence vote) It would send a message that the "will of the people must be done but some peoples will is more important than others, thus only the right will counts"
That's tantamount to hypocrisy on a huge monumental scale.
However thats problematical in itself since Scotland voted in the EU referendum as part of the "whole" UK and it's the statistical representation of a part of that demographic not the whole picture that would be used to justify the second independence argument in this case.
Such is the nature of referendums and statistics. They tell you little beyond numbers.
Do I wish for Scottish independence. Well, I'm not Scottish. So my knowledge is limited on a first hand basis. What I can say is should it happen, oh lord what change that will be...
Finally, none of this is happening in isolation. I mentioned a perfect storm of synchronicity, consider the global moves to more of the "me" and "us not them" rhetoric and you have at best worrisome rhetoric and at worst the prelude to dissolution of the world as we've known it for the last near century. A dissolution that will not be without it's pains.
If one subscribes to the writing of plato, there exists a staged system of levels to human societal development.
Aristocracy - This regime would be ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason Timocracy - subverts the wisdom of a aristocracy for vested self interest disguised as public service. Oligarchy - An extension of the timocracy that elevates the rich into positions of power even if incompetent Democracy - Freedom is seen as the supreme good but becomes a form of slavery. Democratic man wants to buy stuff with his money, and is somewhat self obsessed with unnecessary material-istic wants. Tyranny - Things degenerate more into a chaotic lack of discipline the result of which is that pursuit of power is all consuming, the power that is needed to preserve order.
The rise of the "alt right" and other nationalistic & not wholly morally motivated political entities with seemingly fractured relationships within the US, Europe, and the UK make me wonder if we - humanity - are perhaps walking, very morally and benevolently but none the less blindly, towards a tyrannical world state in global politics. One where "the government" knows best, and the unquestioning populace acquiesces to the will of those "in power" and 'with power" so that what passes for "order" can be maintained. Of course that's because I live in an area of the world where this isn't (yet) the case, for some that tyrannical vision is already their lived truth.
All done in the name of "the people" of course. But the question remains "which ones?"
Still don't forget, even in the face of all this our greatest strength is one derived from our greatest weakness. Self belief/self delusion.
So lets stay stubbornly optimistic, we might just need that
Welcome to a another sunny Sunday noon on planet Earth.
Today is intended to be something a short blog entry, since it serves an introduction to a bit of a serialisation of my thoughts on a book I'm currently reading.
Nigel Warburton's "the basics of philosophy"
As regular readers of my random musing of the world at large will know I've developed something of an interest in the socratic method of questioning what we human presume to know.
However, it seemed to me that it would be a logical approach to learn more about the central tenants of philosophical thought since my prior experience is based very much in the more scientific methods and well, to be honest, i didn't know know what I didn't know.
In reading this book, aimed at the fledgling philosopher, I aim to find out what I don't yet know, as the author discusses arguments relating to
God
Right and Wrong
Animals
Politics
Appearance and reality
Science
Mind
Art
I thought I would take an approach similar to that of Wayne Dyer in his explorations of the Tao De Ching, Dr Dyer took 4 days to examine each verse of the Dao. Of course theres quite a bit more to this that a single verse in each section. So I plan to read each section, probably re read it a few times and then write about it. Perhaps the arguments may tie into other more personal questions, such as trans, parenthood, and who know what.
So, there it is, my self imposed project for the next year or so, to explore and learn the basics of philosophy
Hello again. Tis a sunny, blustery Wednesday afternoon here at Optimistic HQ. T'was whilst going on a few errands this morning and pondering the flurry of quotes, anecdotes and articles that were the response to recent comments in the Sunday times by Dame Jenni Murray, presenter of womans hour and columnist for the aforementioned newspaper, that I came up with "a question". Before Dame Jenni made her comments I'd recently completed a piece on the legal and moral issues of trans gender as both a concept and a societal "thing" as it were. In it I made the comment below, when applying the oft quoted "why do you have to be so openly gay" question to the trans phenomenon. Why do you have to be "publicly trans" ..err Derrr! We kinda have to be cos unlike sexual orientation, trans is intrinsically an externally obvious social verbal and non verbal conversation It's the later half of that statement thats been rattling round in my head since Dame Jenni's article, and gave rise to this question....
Who's gender is it anyway?
An imperfect analogy. Lets suppose a "gay guy" goes to the store to buy biscuits. He selects what he wishes to buy, has a brief discussion with the cashier and then leaves. At no point is his sexuality actually on display for all to see. Lets suppose he is followed some minutes later by an effeminate gentleman, a flamoyant character, who buys orange juice. The same thing occurs. Finally a Trans person, lets say a trans woman walks in. Her status as trans might not be visibly obvious. she might "pass" as a "cis gender woman" quite well physically, but as soon as she speaks to a member of staff asking where the biscuits are her "Trans-ness" is out there ... So, here we have three different scenarios, that will each have very different verbal and non verbal communication outcomes in terms the reaction of both the customer and of the shop staff. The gay chap in the first example may not choose to say anything related to sexuality in his quick conversation with the cashier. Thus the cashier, dependent on their internal world view will make assumptions (unconsciously) about that person. However if in the course of the conversation the cashier asks "any plans this afternoon?" and he chooses to say "I'm off to lunch with my boyfriend" that removes ambiguity, and thus perhaps changes the internal assumption of the cashier, based on what has transpired than their individual take on it. Let's take the second example. The cashier may make the same (unknowing) assumptions based on his effeminate manner. But when he says "I'm off to see the wife"... they may change. Again "to what" depends greatly on the observer. When the trans woman asks her question, the cashier once again has to mentally readjust dependent on what was initially expected from the brief interaction. Since the non verbals & visual evidence says "woman" but what is heard says "man". Now, you might say hang on, but people dont make unconcious assumptions based their predisposed idea of the world? Ok, so how many of you assumed the cashier in all the above examples to be female, young and probably heterosexual? Indeed, all who read through this will have created a mental picture of the cashier according to their own internal expectations of the world around them. That's my point. Perceptions. Peoples perception and thus interpretation of what is presented to them are so interdependent on both external and internal factors and opinions that to try and control them is nigh on impossible. In the third example, where the trans woman speaks, it's not what she says thats the issue, but rather how she speaks and sounds. Her choice of whether or not to disclose her trans status is lessened when compared to the other two regards their orientation if she wishes to interact with the world at all. Like I say this, is an imperfect analogy Since questions of identity are different to those of orientation, but nonetheless it serves to highlight the issue. Let's consider "discrimination", in light of this question of "perception" and its interpretation. Imagine the same trans woman, visually one who passes as cis gender, but who's voice is a bit of a give away of her trans-ness. During the course of her trip to the shops she leaves the house, almost bumps into an unfamiliar passing workman on the way out the gate who gives a cheery "sorry love" she smiles an apology and walks on. Getting into her car she continues to drive the shop, arrives and parks, having to go up to the window of the pay station to pay... "yes love" says the security guard on seeing her walk up..."parking for two hours please" she says, The attendant gets her the ticket and change, handing them over, and then says "there you go mate" On getting to the shop the cashier, after being asked where the biscuits are, dutifully points them out, then returns to her work, but grins at her colleague and points out the trans woman when she believes they are out of ear shot. After buying the biscuits our trans woman then leaves the store and on so doing a polite gentleman holds the door open for her, letting her out first, she utters a quick "Thanks", only to see the chaps face change when he realises he's been "duped" into letting "a man" out first. Our trans woman returns to her car, drives home and bumps into the postie, who she knows well.... "Hiya, there you go three letters", "Oh thanks" she says with a smile.
Finally she's is home. So, at no point did our trans woman tell anyone she is trans. But, because people throughout the day with whom she interacted made assumptions based on their perceptions, and interpretations, which then had to "recalibrate", due to "mixed messages" regarding who or what they were perceiving. Our trans woman is therefore constantly having that "unspoken" (no pun intended) dialogue of justification and validation of self with every person she meets, less those who already know her. So where is the morality tale in this? The workman simply took her for a cis woman, and was polite and apologetic. Since she didnt speak we shall never know if, were he to be informed of her trans ness, he would view his actions as wrong. The parking attendant then initially assumed her as a woman visually hence the "love" comment, but revised their appraisal in light of "new evidence" of a male sounding voice. giving rise to the "mate" at the end. The shop worker pointing out the trans woman to her colleague, what did she say? was it complimentary or not? We shall never know. The chap who held the door, again changed mental perceptions half way through his encounter with our trans woman, seemingly not in a complimentary manner. Finally the postie, who simply wasn't an issue, since they knew each other well, and were just talking about the post. All of these encounters serve to highlight that trans people, merely by virtue of existing in our shared real world environment, face a daily challenge presented by something they cannot easily control. At no point thus far in the discussion have we looked at what the trans woman did in her former life, how old she was or what her views are. Yet by virtue of the above examples her very legitimacy of existence is continually questioned. It's this non verbal/verbal conversation that I was alluding to in my comments from the other blog. Suppose we changed it up and the trans woman in question is 6ft 2inches and 18 stone? In other words she doesn't pass for a cis woman due to size and perhaps facial features. In this case all she has to do is physically be in a space for those around her to have a perception of her, subsequently forming opinions based on that perception. Change things again and assume the trans woman to be entirely passing as cis gender, in physicality, mannerisms and voice and we have yet another social conversation going on regarding the interaction "from her to the world" and "from the world to her". Each of these trans women will perhaps experience discrimination differently. Some might experience multiple types at once in an intersectionality type vibe, but crucially their opinions of those experiences are still valid, along with the lessons inherent. Thus no platforming or excluding trans women from a discussion on discrimination, particularly as it pertains to cis women, is short sighted. Believe me trans women know what it's like to be constantly judged on appearance, constantly attempting to justify your place at the table or indeed any table, despite legitimacy of knowledge etc. Some of us even know what its like to be discriminated against based on societal perceptions of women, given that some of us are perceived as andthusinterpreted to be exactly that, though on ocasion not in complimentary ways. This then is the crux of the issue. It occurs to me that since those of us who are late transitionee's have had the boot on the other foot so to speak, post transition we notice a difference in peoples behaviour towards us. One might say from a certain POV this is a "true" experience of pro masculine societal constructs. I am not in this case referring to those who know us as trans or even know us as people, but just the general perception of a woman verses a man. It is not required to actually be either to experience treatment in line with societal predispositions towards men or women. It is merely enough that one is "perceived as" Oddly this premise both aids and debilitates Dame Jenni's point, since trans women pre transtion are "perceived as" men by others during this time, then yes they may experience greater "negative freedoms" than cis women, commonly known as societal privilege. But conversely, post transition, if they are unknowingly "perceived as" women by the observer, thus excluding intersectional 'trans" bias, they will also perhaps experience the societal constraints & biases inherent to "being" women So Gender is an odd thing. So much of it is based on perception (by others) of what we look and sound like, and whether that matches the internal expectations of what the observers experience before them. It's no wonder therefore that trans people, be it trans woman or trans man, are hyper aware of this appearance element, for it is at the very heart of their being "legitimised" by other members of society day in day out. As a result it is quite interesting to hear Dame Jenni condemn two trans women for concerning themselves with getting this aspect right. No-one wants to look like a caricature , but similarly trans people really don't want to look like the social gender they are trying to leave behind, Is it any wonder then that many initially over compensate? There are those who would exclude trans women from debating"single sex issues" based on the predisposition that they are not "real women" (in whatever way they wish to quantify "real", be it looks, biology, science, anatomy or sociology etc etc...) These people miss the simple truth that actually being real or not is irrelevant to discrimination. It is being "perceived" and "interpreted" as real or otherwise that's the issue. Thus it is that in seeking to exclude trans women these very people are themselves at the very heart of the problem that prevents all women, Cis, Trans NB, informed, or otherwise from moving forward to discuss the real issues of combating discrimination at its many sources. Sure we trans women may be different. but that doesn't make us wrong or irrelevant to the debate.
Right, must dash, I'm off to buy some biscuits.... :-)
How are you all? life going well? Yes? Great! No? Keep looking for the lessons! Either ways I invite
you to pull up a seat and chew the fat for a few moments with yours truly, blogger, thinker, tinkerer
and doer of lives wonderful collection of "stuff"
We started today's musings over a cuppa in bed whilst reading through that stream of consciousness that is Facebook. In so doing I came across this.....
It was linked via a friends profile who is (like me) trans and thus predictably might take issue with the view that trans women aren't "real women". (For those that don't know, Dame Jenni is the presenter of woman's hour on radio 4)
Ok, thinks I, heres an interesting read and seemingly omnipresent question. So I read the article and it seems theres an intriguing thread here. Dame Jenni comes from the same era of the feminist movement that is arguably represented most strongly in the public consciousness by Professor Greer. I'm going to pull a few extracts from her original article below, simply because its worthy to note that Pink news is not known for its objectivity in reporting what could be construed as challenging viewpoints.
The original Sunday Times article on which the pink news piece was based can be seen here
Pink news extracts
Head line: BBC woman’s Hour host Dame Jenni Murray says trans women aren’t ‘real women Sunday Times headline Jenni Murray: Be trans, be proud — but don’t call yourself a “real woman” Dame Jenni ask's: "Can someone who has lived as a man, with all the privilege that entails, really lay claim to womanhood? It takes more than a sex change and make-up" This - is in my view - a wholly justified question. Trans people often start their journey towards transition with exactly this burning in their heads. It is a question born of the reality that people often live in the gender assigned at birth, whichever of the usual two options that might be, before taking any actions to alter societies perception of their gender. In years to come - and indeed currently - we are seeing a trend towards transition of individuals in their early to late teens. This means that by the age of forty or thereabouts the person has lived roughly 2/3rds of their life in the gender they identify with. As the time living in - and being perceived by others - as the "orginal" gender diminishes, so too does the argument that Dame Jenni alludes to for having developed societal wide opinions based on that gender. Caveat: However this theory does predispose that whilst living in the gender which they identify with, they pass as that gender. Since the lived experience of a non passing trans woman is perhaps very different from a passing trans man, when both are compared to their cis gender counterparts, intersectionality of discrimination does come into play a little here. (ergo discrimination based on being seen as trans or false or gay etc muddies the waters somewhat of that lived experience being applicable/transferable to cis gender counterparts experiencing sexism) So back to younger transtitionees, it's a simple and fair generalisation to say that most teenagers, by virtue of their being teenagers are not all that fussed about political stuff or "boring" things outside their own peer group. (for the sake of simplicity I'm not addressing pre school transition of children at this point, since that is something of an emotive issue, but none the less the long term societal effects are broadly similar) In this regards trans teens may be slightly more aware of the world around them on a personal level but not all that different from the cis counterparts as they grow up. Dame Jenni: I firmly believe that transsexuals, transvestites, gays, lesbians and those of us who hold to the sex and sexual preference assumed at birth should be treated with respect and protected from the bullying and violence so many of us have suffered Admirable sentiment, but this is an erroneous lead in, since it references both sex and sexual preference you are assumed at birth. I'm sure the first thing anyone assumes on the brith of their child is that they will be heterosexual? Or then again maybe not. Maybe they dont even give it a thought, and just want to focus on now. After all the age of consent and the "birds and the bees" talk is at least 16yrs (??) from this point. So why bring it up? It plays to the LGBT tag. Sure LGB is a thing, but trans is a different thing. Trans is not and never has been a preference, so this simply muddies the waters once more regards nature/nurture and the biology verses choice arguments. It present the reader with an unconscious conflagration that trans is an orientation, which it isn't. Oh and anatomical "sex" isn't gender...that old trope, inferring science again but we shall revisit that in shortly...
Dame Jenni goes on to say... I can’t agree with Julie Burchill or Germaine Greer, whose language in their expression of revulsion at the trans woman (a man who becomes a woman) claiming to be a real woman has been unacceptably crude. Why demean yourself and the feminist politics to which you’ve devoted your life by saying, cruelly and distastefully, “Just because you lop off your penis … it doesn’t make you a woman,” (Greer) or referring to transgender females as “screaming mimis” and “bed wetters in bad wigs” (Burchill)? Equally, I’m appalled at the repulsive misogyny evident in the response of trans activists who have accused Nimko Ali, a Somali and a courageous campaigner against female genital mutilation, of “practising white feminism” or who have demanded the “no platforming” (banning from speaking in public) of women, such as the lesbian feminist Julie Bindel, who have questioned the claims of trans women to be real women. But my concern, which I know is shared by numerous women who are now to be known as “cis” (short for “cisgender” — natural-born women, in the language that’s more familiar to most of us), is for the impact this question of what constitutes “a real woman” will have on sexual politics. And for who has the right to be included in gatherings or organisations that are defined as single sex. I wholeheartedly applaud Dame Jenni for her comment in regards to the language used by Professor Greer, and agree that on the opposite side of the issue many are guilty of wilful failure to engage in debate, preferring mudslinging and personal attacks. The issues at hand are far too important to the wider human race to be trivialised by tit for tat bickering. Her final point, one of the implication for "sexual politics" as she puts it is again a valid one. Indeed the question of inclusion is at the heart of the entire issue, but viewed from Dame Jenni's perspective is only a half story, since she only deals with trans women. (pretty obviously because she is approaching this from a feminist POV and as a woman of course.) Let us not forget the trans man in this argument. Broadly speaking, trans men do have one massive "advantage" over trans women. On average, with their clothes on, it is harder to differentiate the trans man from the cis man, than it is trans woman from cis. Late transitioning trans women "stand out" in society and thus fall victim to misogyny, homophobia (based on the idea they are gay men), mental health stigma, the list is endless. Trans men, whilst getting much the same I am sure, are less visible, thus less discussed. Trans is an issue that needs to focus on the whole picture, not just the feminist perspective. That trans men are often "invisible" is evident in the bathroom bill arguments raging in America, but thats another story for another time. Dame Jenni references a vicar who transitioned in the 1970's and a recent transitonee, India Willoughby, News reader and presenter. Both are held up as examples of "unknowing" Trans woman, who have limited to no knowledge of women's specific political issues at the time of their interview by Dame Jenni. There are two faults with this argument. Firstly, in 1970, the over all perception of "A woman" in society was very different to todays version. Arguably Professor Greer and her contemporaries have had a considerable hand in changing those attitudes, for which they are to be rightly commended. Second, not all "Cis gender" women are clued up on these defining issues of woman hood as Dame Jenni puts it, nor care much about them either, thus knowing/unknowing is not a universal argument. For a link to my "cis/trans explanations see here) Sure both Carol and India didn't know all that much, and whether they perhaps "should" have known more in their positions is open to debate, but had they done so would that then make them qualify as real women? Or by extension can a cis women who is uniformed be deemed to be not a real woman? So much of what Dame Jenni levels at Carol and India is irrelevant unless one assumes they didn't know because they lived as men pre transition. This is huge leap and quite an assumption. So, one has to ask, what is that assumption based on? Dame Jenni goes on to say that India in particular is quite "stereotypical" in her attire choices, and preferences, thus pandering to the societal idea of a man's opinion of what a woman should look like. Recent court cases where employers have attempted to implement dress codes obligating women to wear heels at work or as is the case in the article Dame Jenni references, "always wear make-up, have a manicure and wear stockings over shaved legs" have highlighted the issue of appearance politics as it is applied to women in the professional work spaces. The issue here, that Dame Jenni seemingly misses, is "choice". A woman may choose to wear heels to work. A woman may choose to wear make up, or shave her legs. When that choice is removed and appearance is directed by coercion then there is a problem. Concomitantly if a woman chooses to wear such items because she like them, and this is in agreement with a policy that other women disagree with, that must also be a valid option, since to deny her the choice to do so is to denigrate the other argument. Men and women have through the ages changed their looks, attire etc for reasons of practicality, preference, attraction of companions, uniformity, etc etc. But yet again this does not imbue any legitimacy of "real" woman hood or otherwise, so is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, unless one assumes the decisions India makes are due to her former perceptions whilst in a societal male role. Again quite the assumption. So again, what is it based on? Dame Jenni goes on to reference Dr Zucker, the by now infamous researcher who is a somewhat controversial figure having allegedly (dependent on who you believe) practiced reversion therapy on trans youth, something that is now a universally discredited way of thinking for the medical profession. She also references a person who transitioned male to female and then back again , "Others, like Charles Kane, have found life as a woman intolerable. He began life as a man, became Samantha in 1997, and then, in 2004, had the surgery reversed. He believes he saw himself as an unusually sensitive man, but feels that he had surgery too soon. He said recently: “The worst part about being a woman is being treated as a sex object. So much depends on your appearance at the expense of everything else. Even though I was a woman physically, I felt I still had a male brain, but when I tried to talk to men about blokey things they didn’t take me seriously.” This speaks to someone (Charles in this case) who perhaps hadn't fully appreciated the nuances of social transition, and erroneously thought life would be the same either way. We now know very different, hence the consideration of social elements in transition alongside the medical. The person in question had 6 yrs living in society as a woman. Were they dealing with misogyny? Or was it discrimination due to transphobia and homophobia? (intersectionality again) Who knows, but either way they reverted back the societal perceptions of man. I feel for them, however 6yrs is not a representative sample, and neither are the singular experiences on one person a great evidence base, so why bring it up? Dame Jenni continues: "Ah yes, the male brain. How often do we hear about the male or female brain and the oft-repeated mantra, applied to males and females alike, “I was born into the wrong body”. Research carried out by the distinguished scientists Cordelia Fine and Lise Eliot can find no evidence for such claims. They hold to the fact that all children are born with the potential to develop their own unique characteristics of behaviour, talent and personality, regardless of biological sex. They say that the idea that the brain and the body are split, meaning it is possible to have the brain of one sex and the body of the opposite, is very recent and is not supported by credible scientific evidence."
This latter sentence is the point at which Dame Jenni begins to lose something within context of the article. The statement "not supported by credible evidence" is simply not true... There has been work done in 2011 and published later on that suggests a differential in brain anatomical structure that can reliably sex a brain. This work shows parity with those of a transgender nature. (i've written on the subject quite extensively via the links Dr Sapolsky's lectors on human behavioural biology) See here.. Scientific American
This work in no way indicates a level of potential on the individual, merely a structure anatomical difference that is reliably consistent with the persons "internal" gender - or gender identity if you will - be that cis or trans in nature.
So why would Dame Jenni include an inaccurate statement in her report?
She then goes on to quote a Miranda Yardley, giving no qualification as to her knowledge base other than she is a transgender woman... (presumably assuming the reader knows who she is - she is a trans blogger btw, I looked it up)
"Miranda Yardley,.... is a male-to-female transsexual. She explains that some boys who are gay want to adopt the female gender because they’re considered effeminate and bullied for it. Others may simply refuse to become the kind of men they know, or want to emulate the mothers they love. Others, generally those who come to transition later in life, having lived as heterosexual men, are sexually aroused by the idea of becoming a woman or say they simply feel more comfortable living life as a woman." So, two points here. First to be considered a "real woman" as per Dame Jenni's own criterion, one must be informed about women political struggles. Second, in order for it to be assumed that one knows everything about transgender theory and history, one must simply be trans gender. "Miranda" is assumed to know what she is talking about by virtue of her trans status alone, yet the theories she espouses are as old (and flawed) as Dr Zucker's and the gay conversion therapy ideology that was dropped circa 1950's. The notion that heterosexual men transition because they become aroused by the idea of becomeng a woman is based in the principle of Autogynephillia, which was a theory developed by Ray Blanchard in the 80's and 90's Theres not much on it that qualifies as unbiased, but you can read the wiki here
Crucially the theory has many many critics as it lays it's overriding premise in sexual attraction which as we now know is entirely separate from gender.
The theory has been the subject of protests in the transgender community, which peaked with the publication of Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen in 2003. Following the publication of Bailey's book, Blanchard distinguished between the value of the theory as a behavioral description, versus as an explanation of transsexualism and that only further scientific research could resolve the latter question.[1]The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) does not support the theory, citing a need for further research.[6] WPATH also criticize the theory as being stigmatizing due to focusing on behavior instead of distress.[7]
So Miranda seem a little out of date yet s held up asa basal of trans knowledge. Why?
So to sum up then, what Dame Jenni appears to be doing is suggesting that in order to be considered a real women one must be informed on gender politics, and hold feminist aligned views. Additionally if a trans woman is not so informed or holds differing views these are obviously due to her being being trans..i'e formerly societally male, not just uninformed.
She furthermore erroneously quotes the scientific research on the issue and to add insult to injury equates the comments of one trans woman, of un explained prominence or knowledge as indicative of the wider issue and current knowledge base, in direct contravention of her own ruleset regarding the requirement she herself made of trans women Carol and India, in order for them to be considered "real women".
So I asked myself what is this article based on? Sadly, I have come to this conclusion It is based on the assumption that trans women are men, were men and will always act as men.
It attempts to blur realms of scientific research with use of old outdated and debunked theories, and it includes unqualified opinions of unspecified members of the trans community who may or may not know the nuances of the issue, simply because those opinions agree with the predispositions of the author. It is neither an informed, nor open minded article in its second half content. The first half content establishes the author as a reasonable human being and thus predisposes the reader to seek accord with the more extreme and outdated ideas in the seconds half via the belief that a BBC presenter can't possibly be out of date. Quite simply its a poor attempt at exclusionary rhetoric dressed up as concerned opinion piece.
Why do I say this? Because I'm disappointed. Pink news did an appalling job of dissecting this article, going for headline buzz over content. I so wanted to believe this might be a sign of genuine meaning fully discourse, and a search for truth on the issue. But no. The central question needs to be debated, discussed and defined. It need's to be addressed. But it needs to be addressed unambiguously, transparently, via informed current and relevant debate that does not reduce trans women to mere clothes horses and assume that all their belief systems stem from the inherent maleness of their societal experiences. In short from an unbiased and objective and truthful viewpoint.
What it ultimately proves, if anything is that Trans women are not Cis women. Well no shit Sherlock. We coulda told you that. The issue is that you Dame Jenni, define real women on your own terms. Terms which don't actually apply to all Cis women, and then fail to apply these same requirement to Trans women's legitimacy as you see fit.
You make broad brush assumptions out of nowhere and as I asked a few times in the above text: "What these assumption are based on?" Belief. They are based on a predisposed and seemingly ingrained belief that Trans women can never be as legitimate Cis women, and as such their voices have no place in as you put it "single sex" spaces. That Dame Jenni, is the very definition of trans exclusionary feminism. I Applaud you for your efforts in being non confrontational.....
What does it mean to be seen? Do people see what we are or just that which they think we are?
So speaking as one who was once "seen" quite readily. Soldier, Nurse, Professional, Employed, Educated, Productive, Worthy, etc its interesting to consider that what is seen now is "seemingly" something quite different.
Still, what is my perception of what others see? In truth nothing but a reflection of what I think they see. That being the case then is it valid beyond my own internal perceptions of the world?
Depends on the level of objectivity one applies to the self image I suppose.
I have written before that if one defines oneself by what you "do" and "have", then by extension when you "don't" and "haven't" you "aren't"......
Now while I personally may have gotten some way past all that, realisation dawns that other's perceptions of me are on occasion still based resolutely in that model.
Thus when one enters dialogue based on the assumption of recognition of that which made me all those things above, its quite the bitter pill to be written off as not on that level.
To use an analogy, it's like having been required to briefly leave the table at dinner and then whilst out the other diners forget you were once there and when you try to retake your seat you find they don't recognise you any more, nor believe you should be there.
So, this is the process by which "That which I am", namely all those traits and abilities which allowed me to achieve all those terms above, becomes forgotten. Marginalised and then ignored, to be sacrificed on the alter of perceptions.
This then is societies "invisible man" And they are legion.
Way back in September of last year I started a three part blog entry all about how I see the issue of trans gender in today's world. The first two parts dealt with the sociological implications of "trans" and the physiological and psychological questions around the existence of the trans thing in the human species.
So it'll come as no surprise to you oh perceptive readers of mine that this here entry is the long awaited part three:
Legal and moral questions concerning "Trans" gender stuff in the human population.
So, the obvious question is: "why the large gap from Sept last year until now to write part three"? Quite honestly because I've been researching, questioning and figuring out in my own mind what the situation is and what it perhaps could and - depending on ones POV - should look like.
The recent events in America on which I've written extensively over the last few weeks, my own philosophical musings plus questions directly to my trans peers have all served to shape my view. The keen observers amongst you will note I've added in "moral" to the title as well as legal, which is an addition that owes its inclusion directly to these influences.
So first a brief explanation of law, and the first conundrum with "Trans" phenomena. Laws are by their very nature utilitarian, and universal. They are made to be applied equally to all based on specific defining criteria, or specified exceptions. For example the sale of goods act will define what it means by "goods" and "sale" and anti discrimination legislation will set out what it means by the terms "employee" "contract" , "duties" and so forth. This avoids ambiguity and creates universally understood language so that these terms carry distinct meanings in law and their interpretations can thus be somewhat fixed. Also within these legal definitions are elements of known causality, known origins, thus known and accepted definitions of the terms themselves.
Of course this is in part due to common language. But it highlights a major issue with "trans".
Recently the 2010 equalities act included "transgender" and "gender reassignment" in the legal word pool, and intimated that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person based on these terms or their "gender"
The transgender equality report (which you can see here) Made a few recommendations, and is a positive step in a broadly well meaning direction for trans people. However a bill was tabled in parliament late last year to add in "gender identity" to the legal nomenclature of protected characteristics. (see here) This gave me significant pause.
Why? you might ask? as a trans person surely you'd be in favour of such a move. Well perhaps in principle, but remember what I said about law being universal and utilitarian, and that legal terms need to have solid foundations of clear definition and unambiguity?
"What is Gender identity?"
Ask a dozen trans people, be that M2F F2M or NB, post, pre op, medicated unmedicated etc and you will get a dozen differing definitions ranging from "nature" to "its an intrinsic part of me" to "it is what i say it is"
Ask a dozen cis gendered people and you're likely to get variations on a theme of "sex" "physicality" "woman" "man" etc etc.
So my question is:
"How can we protect something in law when we cannot define critically and clearly what that protected thing is? "
Plus a cis persons "gender identity" is rarely questioned since it follows that its perceived as physiological, and assumed to be thus. Its only the validity of a trans persons "gender identity" that is often called into question because it "appears" to have no basis in commonly held belief systems of the general populace relating to the causality of "gender"
This is at the heart of what I believe has for the last 30 years or so kept "trans" as an issue somewhat murky for the population at large and ill defined even for those more aware of its nuances. It's very diversity of nature appears to be its undoing. (That and being lumped in with LGB issues and then
seen erroneously by the well intentioned unknowing as merely an orientation)
One cannot have "gender identity" protected in law under a basis of "its my opinion" because quite simply that opens the door to the likes of "religious freedom" discrimination exclusion clauses in legislation through legal precedent. "opinion" is subjective. In order to be fair the law MUST be objective. So what to do?
I attempted to define causality of Gender Identity, rooting it in some grounded scientific fact and/or tested theories, and thus giving it a definable nature.
This brought me back to Dr Robert Salpolsky's lectures and the work on the human brain. Heres a link to a short piece by Francine Russo (2016) about the work of Antonio Guilimon et al
(Recap: In essence it suggests that there is a significant and consistent difference in the brains of trans people, when compared to cis. In that the brain of a trans person more closely resembles that of the male/female gender they identify with, or is somewhere in between. This is based on a measure that is routinely and widely used to "sex" brains and has been for sometime.)
So, we have a potential if relatively new scientific explanation for what this "trans"phenomena is. How then can we link this into "gender identity", and how the person "feels"? Behavioural biology is something of a mine field. Correlation often being mistaken for causation and vice verse. It's obvious that a lot more work is required to unpick this, and as such one humble blogger is unlikely to come up with the revolutionary answer in 5000 words or less.
BUT. Here's where it gets interesting. Lets assume this physiological link is valid. Even Dr Guillamon himself said brain scans may not always detect these differences. The result of which is that proving an individual person has the brain structure to "validate" their "gender identity" is still fraught with unknowns. It merely leaves us with the possibility that "gender identity" when applied to people exhibiting a trans trait could be anatomical/biochemical and physiological in nature.
This is of course an imperfect solution. It is however better than simply saying "self definition is a mater of opinion and this opinion should be enshrined in protections of law" Taking that route leads to an animal farm-esque "some opinions are more equal (and thus legal) than others"
Let us assume the physiological link isn't true, what then? Well since we can prove it to be neither true nor untrue at this time (on living patients) one must assume the ethical standpoint that does the least harm to persons exhibiting the conditions being considered. I.e. accept that it may be true and act accordingly, in light of evidence based best practice.
So we come to the morality question.
Opponents of "trans rights" and of theories of gender that break from the general populace's perceived wisdoms of an XY/XX chromosomally defined dichotomy often cite the harm that could result from affirming what they see as erroneous expressions of gender or in extreme cases mental disorder. (as a side note trans gender is now close to not being regarded as mental illness by the forthcoming WHO ICD-11 revision in 2018 and in some cases nationally it already isn't see here)
Some of these objections may come from genuine concern regards the scientific legitimacy of the condition, after all we humans often doubt that which we cannot see. However most come from either religious conviction, or positions of ill placed fear, ignorance (such as the bathroom debate) or it has to be said plain simple old fashioned discriminatory "othering" of that which we don't understand or approve of.
It occurs to me therefore that if more of the trans community took an interest in their causality, as society moves towards being more open to exploring this once taboo area of our genetic, anatomical, physical and psychological beings, then we could turn those well intentioned critics into allies. Not all disagreement comes from a place of hate, some eminates from a genuine desire for the truth.
Once those questions of causality have well known answers, then dependent on those answers we humans have direction. It is possible we may find that trans is not directly linked to anatomy. It is possible this could all be a dead end in the evolutionary tale of human knowledge. But given what we already appear to know I personally feel that outcome is unlikely. Sure it'll feed into the nature and nurture arguments, and we may never fully unravel that which is our building blocks, but every little helps.
The questions of the morality of legal protection for trans people is therefore one that bears striking similarities to the fight for gay and lesbian rights, simply because those opposing the legal protections are the same people, and often using the same arguments.
Dr John Corvino gave (in my view) a brilliant series of lectures entitled "Whats morally wrong with homosexuality?" There much of his work on youtube but if you have an hour of so I heartily suggest a listen.
Dr Corivino is a philosophy professor, and is in no small part responsible for my growing interest in the subject. (see my other blogs for that)
So with Apologies and thanks to Dr Corivino"
"Whats morally wrong with "trans"if any thing? and if nothing whats all the fuss about?
Currently we know via evidence that reversion therapies don't work, and gender identity affirmation does work for the benefit of the Patient, with better outcomes. So that would seem a no brainier in allowing trans patients to access medical care. Trans people have identities thats have scope way beyond just that gender bit. (or their body parts) They are sports people, academics, therapists, nurses, bus drivers and all sorts of things. So why focus just on the biology? There are Male people, and Female people, then there are Non binary (+ other) people (and they mess up our neat categories . That the biology of those categories is now not as clear cut as it once was believed to be has already been covered, regardless of that they remain people. The bible condemns it. Christian doctrine is a mixed "blessing" and worthy of a blog all of its own. But suffice to say the bible says less of trans gender than it does of homosexuality, which isn't itself all that much. Plus religion is a matter of faith, and thus opinion, and as I've already said, we know all to well how legislation for one opinion above another ends up. You might think trans is gross. That's just aesthetics. One cannot tie morality to that. Some of us look odd, and thats the way it is. (earlier transition may address this particularly in the M2F group, so if we can have better access to medical care as per my first point society perhaps wont have to deal with this one much longer) Why do you have to be "publicly trans" ..err Derrr! We kinda have to be cos unlike sexual orientation, trans is intrinsically an externally obvious social, verbal and non verbal conversation.
You get the idea. Many of the historical objections aimed at LGB through the years are now being used on trans people. Perhaps one can hypothesis this has more to do with the accusers than the accused but i'll leave that issue alone for now.
So, where does this all leave us?
Legally trans people now have some growing protections in various places across the globe. Those protections are still so new it's painfully obvious the birth pains of the legislations are still subsiding. In America the legal protections are being rolled back by what is at best a questionable regime, wrapped up in race hate and all sorts of terrifying doctrines.
So it's now more than ever important to look not just at the legal standing of trans, but the moral implications of denying healthcare and employment and discrimination protections and housing etc to these people solely on the opinion that they are "doing something we don't agree with"
Whilst my arguments above on the legitimacy of a legal definition and causality for "gender identity" that goes beyond opinion still stands. from a moral standpoint it really is secondary. "Trans" people are trans "people" and as such deserve the same level of consideration, respect and validity as any others group of people.
In considering the terminology, and the words "Trans" & "Gender identity" and given the arguments I've put forward for a causality of what I've called "trans trait" I'd suggest that "trans"as we know it, in those who make a permanent life changing affirmation of who they are, is perhaps merely a symptom of that which we already know as "intersex". But rather than being focused on the gonadal physiology, has it's origins in the structure and "wiring" of the brain. More research is undoubtably needed to flesh out that theory, but its an intriguing thought.
To finish on a another point made succinctly by Dr Corivino and one that can be applied in my view equally to trans:
Acknowledging they are trans gender makes some people happy(ier).
You may disagree with their decision & thats fine. I hate liver and onions.. but since it doesn't harm those who don't eat it you can still legally and publicly buy it, and I'm told some people even like it.
My opinion does not make the buying and eating of liver and onions "wrong".
So, if you have questions about trans, about what some of it means, or maybe just want to find out more, Get to know a trans person, not just their trans-ness, you never know you might find you have more in common that you thought possible.
This morning I rose from my sleep after a late night playing D&D at a friends house. (For those in the know I was the dungeon master and will be for the next game, the third in a series of three)
As I was wandering around doing the usual stuff, washing clothes etc, my mind went back the conversation I'd had with one of my friends in the car whilst dropped him off after the game. I've been out of regular work for some time now, since Sept last year, so almost 6 months. My friend has had similar periods of "unemployment" a few years back and although now very much back on track with his career, we batted back and forth ideas and experience about the best way to write a cv etc, to get noticed amongst the pool of applicants. Given I'm six months in, common sense would suggest mine needs a reshuffle.
This lead to a thought this morning, as I pondered that word.
"Unemployment"
What does that actually mean? Occasionally I get myself down hearted due to my lack of resources currently and thats - pretty obviously - down to my situation as regards paid work. However, am I actually 'un-employed" ?
If you look up the definition of the word the first hit on google is:
It's the synonyms I find most Interesting. "idle" being one of them. And "Jobless". One could suggest I am neither, since I am writing this blog, (plus others) and spend a number of hours in academically inclined contemplation of philosophical thought & research plus doing my D&D planning. Occasionally I fix the odd bike, advise a friend of mine with a fledging bike business, and just last week I serviced the brakes on Vanessa, my old combo van, currently much battered and much loved . So one could argue I'm neither idle nor jobless.
Yet given an accusation levelled at me a few days ago, of being a "Pseudo Intellectual" and societies propensity to label people and assign veracity to their arguments based on somewhat arbitrary qualifiers, it's made me think. For example to be seen as legitimately knowing and understanding management principles one must be in a management job, thus I cant help wondering what qualifiers people place on me, an "unemployed, Trans-woman"? and moreover I'm questioning do they apply?
I would argue that since I'm "employing my time" doing other things I'm certainly not "unemployed" in that sense, yet it's very much true that what I do does not pay me directly, other than perhaps the link between searching for a (better) paid method of employing my time, and proof of that search being linked to a substance renumeration called benefits. Am I thus then being paid to look for work and therefore am "employed" in that capacity? (which would mean i wouldn't be unemployed and as result couldn't claim the benefit....yeah thats weird? ...)
Furthermore, unemployed has become shorthand for Idle in the minds of some, a perception of literally "doing nothing" and thus my financial constraints are seen as by choice. Whilst it's true that my choices in life have lead to this point (how could they not have?) I'd not say I would "choose" to remain in this situation were other options presented or discovered. This perception of unemployed = idle then brings in the skewed morality of the deserving and undeserving person. Those who actively seek to better themselves being seen perhaps as deserving of more assistance in doing so and thus achieving that aim.
All in all it's just a bit of amusing word play. I am reminded of the words of Tom Cruise in "The last Samurai", where he plays a conflicted American soldier struggling with memories of questionable actions.
"I am beset by the ironies of my life"
Side note, it's one of my favourite characters, and movies. It speaks to the shifting historical context of morality, remorse, honour and respect for culture, plus the concept of finding personal peace and redemption. The examination of which is sorely needed today.
Thankfully I haven't chosen the route Nathan Algren, the central character in the film did, initially climbing into a whiskey bottle to escape his memories, but believe me when I say at certain points in my life the option was more than just considered.
Many years ago I walked into a car dealership. It was to collect business cards for a school project. I was 16 ish. The first time I walked in I was summarily dismissed by the sales guy, who saw a scruffy kid. The next time I walked in and happened to be wearing smart clothes. I received much more assistance. Why?
Perceptions. Same person but a different image, Thus it is with "unemployed" "trans-woman" and "pseudo" intellectual.
These labels merely define a point, a discrete snapshot of our lives, and cannot ever encompass the whole. Confucius died believing himself a failure since no monarch took up his words, and Socrates was sentenced to death and executed by the very athenians he had sought to educate. Yet after their deaths both men gave rise to institutions that carried their ideas forward for centuries.
"Failure" for both was but a temporary thing. Their success lay in their "knowledge". Knowledge of humility, humanity and the importance of each, with their employment of these and other traits. There success was not defined by themselves at least, on whether they were paid well because of it.
Perhaps here then is my mini epiphany. Employ what knowledge you have to your greatest effect, and you shall, in time, see results, regardless of your current situation and other peoples definitions of it. Or, to put it another way,
"If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavours to live the life that he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours."
