#Reverse Psychology In Expressing Discrimination

[msclaritea]

Best comment:

"It's all by design. With no heroes left to emulate, how will future generations learn to resist?"

#Doctor Who #Picard #Luke Skywalker #Star Trek #Star Wars #Sony Pictures #Universal Pictures #Warner Bros Discovery #Paramount #BBC #Intentionally Destroying Beloved and Inspiring Franchises #Deproving Young Adults of Potential Heries #Killing Ways To Bond Among Family #Deliberately Portraying Toxic Representations #Emasculated Men #Sociopathic Women #All Black People Are Gay #Reverse Psychology In Expressing Discrimination #Davros #Dwarfs #Peta Dinklage really did fuck all them over #Superhero films are potentially inspiring unless you attach the moniker Fatigue and help studios in destroying them #Disney Company #Leftist and Right #Gender Ideology cult #Destroy Heroes To Control Society

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Abstract

The study’s purpose was to describe a population of individuals who experienced gender dysphoria, chose to undergo medical and/or surgical transition and then detransitioned by discontinuing medications, having surgery to reverse the effects of transition, or both. Recruitment information with a link to an anonymous survey was shared on social media, professional listservs, and via snowball sampling. Sixty-nine percent of the 100 participants were natal female and 31.0% were natal male. Reasons for detransitioning were varied and included: experiencing discrimination (23.0%); becoming more comfortable identifying as their natal sex (60.0%); having concerns about potential medical complications from transitioning (49.0%); and coming to the view that their gender dysphoria was caused by something specific such as trauma, abuse, or a mental health condition (38.0%). Homophobia or difficulty accepting themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual was expressed by 23.0% as a reason for transition and subsequent detransition. The majority (55.0%) felt that they did not receive an adequate evaluation from a doctor or mental health professional before starting transition and only 24.0% of respondents informed their clinicians that they had detransitioned. There are many different reasons and experiences leading to detransition. More research is needed to understand this population, determine the prevalence of detransition as an outcome of transition, meet the medical and psychological needs of this population, and better inform the process of evaluation and counseling prior to transition.

Sir,

Bustos et al1 aimed to measure the prevalence of regret following gender-affirmation surgery. Given the significant rise in young people seeking medical intervention for gender dysphoria, which can include surgery, outcome studies that accurately assess regret are of increasing importance. In this letter, we argue that the conclusions of their systematic review and meta-analysis are questionable due to limitations in their methods and shortcomings of the studies selected.

Starting with methods, the authors overlooked numerous relevant studies, including one of the best-known,2 raising questions about the adequacy of their search strategy. One study3 was inappropriately included as it only investigated regret regarding choice of surgical procedure, not of surgery itself. In addition, there are significant data extraction errors, leading to erroneous conclusions. For instance, the sample for surgical regret in their largest included study4 was inflated from 2627 to 4863, likely due to a miscalculation from a table reporting the treatment patterns of that paper’s total study population.

Besides these methodological inaccuracies, data in this field are often of low quality because of “lack of controlled studies, incomplete follow-up, and lack of valid assessment measures,”5 as well as the long amount of time regret can take to manifest (the average and median are estimated at 8–8.5 years2,4). Many of the included studies had participants with follow-up periods of only 1 or 2 years postsurgical transition. None appear to have a long enough follow-up period to reliably identify regret. The study contributing almost half of the participants4 explicitly noted their inclusion of participants with short follow-up time, relative to time to regret, and their large 36% loss to follow-up as limitations. These shorter studies only provide an estimated lower limit, as the large numbers of patients lost to follow-up add correspondingly large uncertainties to any quoted number.

Bustos et al1 acknowledge “moderate-to-high risk of bias in some studies.” Actually, this affects 23 of the 27 studies. The majority of included studies ranged between “poor” and “fair” quality: only five studies—representing just 3% (174) of total participants—received higher quality ratings. However, even these had loss to follow-up rates ranging from 28% to more than 40%, including loss through death from complications or suicide, negative outcomes potentially associated with regret.

A last and major concern involves sample selection. The cohort presenting with gender dysphoria today is substantially different from the cohort presenting during the research periods of the included studies. Further, there has been a significant liberalization over time of the criteria assessing readiness for surgery. Thus, the outcomes reported may be of limited relevance for estimating current surgery outcomes. Additionally, the generalization to “TGNB” populations seems unreliable, as it is based on an explicit sample size of only one “non-binary” patient. The authors do not address these issues.

In light of these numerous issues affecting study quality and data analysis, their conclusion that “our study has shown a very low percentage of regret in TGNB population after GAS” is, in our opinion, unsupported and potentially inaccurate.

Abstract

Two Dutch studies formed the foundation and the best available evidence for the practice of youth medical gender transition. We demonstrate that this work is methodologically flawed and should have never been used in medical settings as justification to scale this “innovative clinical practice.” Three methodological biases undermine the research: (1) subject selection assured that only the most successful cases were included in the results; (2) the finding that “resolution of gender dysphoria” was due to the reversal of the questionnaire employed; (3) concomitant psychotherapy made it impossible to separate the effects of this intervention from those of hormones and surgery. We discuss the significant risk of harm that the Dutch research exposed, as well as the lack of applicability of the Dutch protocol to the currently escalating incidence of adolescent-onset, non-binary, psychiatrically challenged youth, who are preponderantly natal females. "Spin" problems—the tendency to present weak or negative results as certain and positive—continue to plague reports that originate from clinics that are actively administering hormonal and surgical interventions to youth. It is time for gender medicine to pay attention to the published objective systematic reviews and to the outcome uncertainties and definable potential harms to these vulnerable youth.

Abstract

Introduction Concerns about future regret and treatment discontinuation have led to restricted access to gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) minors in some jurisdictions. However, these concerns are merely speculative because few studies have examined gender-affirming hormone continuation rates among TGD individuals.

Methods We performed a secondary analysis of 2009 to 2018 medical and pharmacy records from the US Military Healthcare System. We identified TGD patients who were children and spouses of active-duty, retired, or deceased military members using International Classification of Diseases-9/10 codes. We assessed initiation and continuation of gender-affirming hormones using pharmacy records. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses estimated continuation rates.

Results The study sample included 627 transmasculine and 325 transfeminine individuals with an average age of 19.2 ± 5.3 years. The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 63.9-76.5). Transfeminine individuals had a higher continuation rate than transmasculine individuals 81.0% (72.0%-90.0%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). People who started hormones as minors had higher continuation rate than people who started as adults 74.4% (66.0%-82.8%) vs 64.4% (56.0%-72.8%). Continuation was not associated with household income or family member type. In Cox regression, both transmasculine gender identity (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.50-3.86) and starting hormones as an adult (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.14-2.52) were independently associated with increased discontinuation rates.

Discussion Our results suggest that >70% of TGD individuals who start gender-affirming hormones will continue use beyond 4 years, with higher continuation rates in transfeminine individuals. Patients who start hormones, with their parents’ assistance, before age 18 years have higher continuation rates than adults.

#Christina Buttons #Leor Sapir #Dr. Phil #Lisa Littman #detrans #detransition #transition regret #medical scandal #medical malpractice #medical corruption #evidence based medicine #gender affirming care #gender affirming healthcare #gender affirmation #religion is a mental illness

[shinra-makonoid]

This is the article about the former post I made that is cited and oooh boy. There are a few things that seem interesting, but again it’s a survey on 100 people and that means it’s kind of complicated to get any conclusion at all. Like... Yeah, it’s really bad, it was 69 females and 31 males.

First thing first, it’s probably actually 100 actual people as put there.

So it’s a good point for them. I’m going to focus on females because that’s mostly what is the fuss about and also there’s only 31 males lmao take everythiiiiing with a grain of salt but for the purpose of not being redundant I’m going to take the survey at face value.

Anyway I wanted to point out a few interesting things:

Based on the survey detransition would be a white thing. Wonder if the non-binary/bullshit transition is also a white thing.

Contrary to the book “transgender craze seducing your daughter”, this isn’t a majority rich people thing.

So 40% of females without any mental health issues. So the idea that females transition out of mental health issues is not so true based on the survey. I’m not sure how much trust we can attribute to “experienced a trauma less than one year before the start of gender dysphoria” because that is broad and the mind will automatically make a link if you ask the question in such a way. I’m not sure how they asked the question though, so I’m leaving it out out of ignorance.

They all transitioned at different moments but they all transitioned in a mean calendar year of 2014. You would think someone who isn’t happy with their transition, wanting to be free from it, would come up at significantly different point in time to detransition. Which, to me, show that this is probably also an ongoing trend.

Those people shouldn’t have transitioned in the first place.

Also the fact that in most cases what changed was their personal definition is kind of funny. Like, that’s it? That’s all it took? I mean lmao that’s kind of strange isn’t it? Doesn’t that feel like brainwashing a little? I don’t know.

#long post #science

[sotina886]

Racial Discrimination: One Doctrine, Multiple Masks

Source Title: Racial Discrimination: One Doctrine, Multiple Masks

In recent years, racism has become an increasingly common term in American public discourse. Since the rise of the black civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s, the understanding, interpretation and use of this term have never stopped.

The death of George Floyd, a black man, in a police violent law enforcement incident in May of this year has become the fuse for a new round of racial conflicts accumulated in the United States. The large-scale street protests triggered by the "Black people's fate" movement renewed people's attention to racism.

As a historical phenomenon, the issue of racism has been entwining the United States and has become a social disease that is difficult to eradicate. The main reason is that racism has always been deeply embedded in various American systems and life, and manifested in different forms, continuously exerting destructive effects on American society and individuals. Under the impact of the new crown pneumonia epidemic, anti-racism has a long way to go in the United States.

Three major manifestations

Racism is an ideology as well as a social behavior: it believes that different races or skin colors can explain the differences in characteristics and abilities between people, and that certain races are superior to other races; it is also a form of reliance on race or color. Color judgments trigger prejudice or discriminatory words and deeds. In this sense, racism and racial discrimination can sometimes be used interchangeably in meaning.

According to the definition of the United Nations "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (1965), "racial discrimination" refers to any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent or ethnicity, and its purpose or effect is to cancel Or damage the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of equal status of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any other aspect of political, economic, social, cultural or public life. It should be noted that "preferential" is also regarded as a form of discrimination.

In a society based on the concept of racial hierarchy, racial contradictions and conflicts will inevitably breed. In other words, a group of people or individuals in a particular social class has a discriminatory or derogatory attitude towards another group of people or individuals in society based on their perceptions of race and color. The former usually have more social power and resources, and use these powers and resources to constantly maintain and strengthen the racial prejudice from "up" to "down".

Therefore, it is necessary to understand racism in the prevailing social and cultural power relations. "Individual racism" and "structural racism" are considered to be the two main forms.

For many people, individual racism is racism in the usual sense, that is, a person treats the other person differently because of their race or skin color, usually (intentionally or unintentionally) through ideas, words, expressions or behavior It manifests itself in such a way as to cause estrangement, rejection and even resentment between people. In the United States, it occurs between whites and minorities, as well as between different minorities, the so-called "horizontal racism."

Structural racism is mainly embedded in the practice of certain institutions or institutional systems. The racial discrimination it reflects is caused by various institutions or institutional arrangements in society, such as enterprises, governments, schools, hospitals, courts, etc., and is sometimes referred to as institutional or systemic discrimination. The main manifestation is that, through certain public policies, departmental actions, cultural performance and other norms and standards, certain ethnic groups are always in a state of inequality, often accompanied by coercive methods, such as discriminatory legislation, residential segregation policies, and low-income groups. Level of medical care, low education, unequal economic opportunities, etc.

The consequences of the two forms of racism are clearly different. The former are discriminated against by individuals or a few people; the latter are discriminated against by a large number of people. In addition, the former is easy to recognize, detect and correct; the latter is more concealed, more accustomed, and more difficult to correct.

In addition to these two forms, there is also an implicit racism. When racial discrimination is generally regarded as a social cancer that needs to be eradicated around the world, the blatant racial discrimination in the past has gradually been replaced by implicit racial discrimination. Implicit discrimination can be individual or structural. It is not easy to be noticed by the public, and sometimes it is even vague in its definition. It does not seem to be racially colored, but it is not.

American complex reality

Although the American Civil War that broke out in 1861 radically abolished slavery and brought the country back to unity from a state of being on the verge of division, ethnic issues still exist and continue to tear American society apart. Although various laws and ideas about slavery and racial discrimination have been abolished, their residual influence has continued to this day.

More challenging and stubborn is structural racism, which is manifested in many aspects of American politics, economy, military, and society. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the Hanapepe Massacre, and the Japanese-American detention camps in history are all typical cases that have caused a huge wave of racial disputes.

For some minorities, structural racism is still ubiquitous, but some whites do not think so, because it satisfies the vested interests of the white majority of the population, and because its victims often live in slums and detention centers. Or prisons and other "invisible" places.

Compared with the past, more ethnic minorities are now getting good jobs and have certain social status. Some white people are beginning to reflect on structural racism, and even worry about the phenomenon of so-called "reverse racism"-that is, governments at all levels Minorities provide more welfare and relief programs, open borders, and implement affirmative actions. These benefits make white people feel discriminated against in society. This difference in perception has to a certain extent aggravated the domestic racial problems in the United States.

The "Death of Freud" in May triggered protests and anger that swept across the United States and the world, not only because of its cruel images, but also because of its occurrence at the time when the new crown pneumonia epidemic in the United States continued to spread.

On the one hand, the U.S. government has long failed to ensure that ethnic minorities enjoy equal rights in health, housing, education, and other fields; on the other hand, African and Hispanic Americans suffer the most poverty due to lower incomes and higher debt. This means that they are more likely to live in crowded spaces, have to choose more public transportation, and are exposed to the virus at work. This makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves during the epidemic, resulting in huge differences in the prevalence and mortality of the new crown pneumonia epidemic in the United States at the ethnic level.

Anti-racial discrimination has a long way to go

Why is it difficult to eradicate racial issues in American society? One can make a long list of reasons. The most fundamental of these is that racism is deeply rooted in the American political and cultural system and has been internalized as an integral part of the American social structure.

First, racism has been internalized in the social, economic and political life of the United States. The United States is a country of immigrants, composed of races with different cultures, languages, and skin colors. However, white Europeans have always accounted for the majority of the entire population of this country and are in a dominant position in American political and cultural life.

Second, on the ideological level, racism has never completely withdrawn from the stage of history in the United States. Although various laws and concepts related to black slavery and racial discrimination have been abolished, the old and outdated white colonial consciousness and psychology still exist. The difference between "contemporary colonists" is that they stay away from war and weapons, and instead use culture, language, and education to make people accept and recognize the concept of "white supremacy".

This type of symbolic power makes minorities subconsciously accept, endure, and adapt to the reality of their racial subordination and unequal status, thereby producing self-identity and cognitive psychological inferiority and depression. For some ethnic minority immigrants, joining the "mainstream society" in the United States means integrating into a white-dominated society.

Third, racism is often used as a political tool in the United States. The civil rights movement and "Freud's death storm" both have important political driving forces behind them. Immigration has become an important issue in the political confrontation between the two parties in the United States, and ethnic politics has also become an important incentive for the resurgence of racism in recent years.

As the demographic structure of the United States has changed, the growth rate of the minority population has accelerated, and one of the fastest-growing groups is the "mixed race." One prediction is that due to the higher birth rate of non-white babies, the white majority of the population may not last long, and there may be situations in the United States where no ethnic group alone can constitute the majority of society. While the domestic ethnic politics and social development in the United States have become more diversified, new risks have followed one after another. Anxiety, fear, and irritability have once again made the argument of white supremacy rise again.

Obviously, racism has questioned the two core "American myths" repeatedly narrated. One myth is "destiny determined by heaven", which emphasizes the sacred nature of America’s belief in democracy and freedom; the other myth is "American Dream", which is engraved in the ideals of immigrants and believes that the future of this chosen country is beautiful. And it will be beautiful.

These two myths are portrayed as the reality of American daily life, and they frequently appear in people's daily speech. People aspire to live in a racially equal society, but in the United States today, reality and ideals are still far away.

The chronic disease of racism in the United States needs to be eradicated through profound social reforms, especially from the two aspects of ideology and social behavior. It should not only pay attention to anti-racism at the individual level, but also at the entire social level. As a global ethical value, anti-racism requires the active participation and action of all people.

[aboycalledeverything]

An In-depth Response to JK Rowling from a Transman

**CW: transphobia, suicide, surgery, discrimination, assault**

Let me first say that we should not allow this conversation to derail the progress and momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement. Though race and sexuality intersect in many fascinating and important ways, it is important to allow the voices of our BlPOC to be heard and amplified for as long as it takes for meaningful, sweeping changes to be made in our society. That being said, I would be remiss if I did not take the time to process and respond to the conversation you have chosen to bring to the table. 

TLDR: To JK’s assertion that trans women threaten the political and biological class of ‘women’,  Acknowledging that trans women are women is not the erosion of a political and biological class. It is strengthening those classes by accepting the women who, despite all threats of assault or death, stand by their identity and celebrate womanhood.

Let me also begin by saying thank you. For surviving, for persisting, for blessing the world with the gift of magic. The books-which-need-not-be-named were and are pillars of my childhood, identity, and life philosophy. I will never stop finding solace in the pages of those books. 

Before we can continue the conversation, I need to introduce myself. I am a (relatively) young white transman and former D1 softball player. I chose to defer physical transition but came out socially as a transman in my sophomore year and was one of the few openly trans NCAA athletes at the time. I was also a student, and spent a large portion of my collegiate career studying LGBTQ+ issues and how they connect to human psychology. My senior capstone was a paper titled “Transmen and Suicide: Unique Contributors to a Disproportionately High Suicide Attempt Rate.” This involved both an in-depth literature review of trans research and theory as well as an independent collection and analysis of transman testimonies. The year after graduation was spent as a Lab Coordinator for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Health and Human Rights Lab at the University of Texas at Austin which does phenomenal sociological and psychological research on queer youth in particular. This is not to say that I am an expert, but rather to make it clear that I, too, have spent years researching the fraught topics of gender and sexuality.

Thank you for referring to my trans brothers as “notably sensitive and clever people.” We do try to use the unique empathy granted by being seen and treated as both women and men. Most of us grew up as girls and have been targeted by the misogyny and sexism that you reference; we try to use those experiences to inform our responses and opinions to societal issues. I, specifically, am going to use my lived experiences to respond to your essay. There are some points with which I agree and appreciate your recognition - freedom of speech, the importance of nuanced conversation, and the fact that both women and trans people are at disproportionate risk of violence and must be safeguarded. There are other points with which I take umbrage and will address one by one.

JKR: “It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.”

Response:  Let’s be clear: trans activists - at least the majority of us - are not trying to erase sex as a definition. Instead, we are asking that the parameters be reconsidered to make space for intersex people and who have biologically transitioned. Your points about the biological differences in treatments for MS are well taken. Ignoring intersex people and focusing on only the binary sexes male and female, you’re right. There are often sex differences in diseases and health disorders. But the problem is that we don’t always know what drives those differences; if they’re based on hormones, physical bodies, or something else entirely. Intersex and trans people, if they choose, now have the medical capability to change their hormones and physical bodies to the extent that they can be classified as male or female.

I’m not going to give you a full explanation on sex as an expression of levels of hormones, chromosomes, and physical organs. I’m sure you already know that both biological men and women have varying amounts of the same hormones, and that hormone replacement therapy can and does give trans men and women the hormonal levels that correspond to each definition. I have been taking testosterone for just under 2 years and, for all intents and purposes, have the chemistry of a biological man. In the same way, surgeries can and do affect physical biology and organ makeup, from removal or reconstruction of a penis or vagina to the removal of ovaries and uterus entirely. 

This creates a gray area as to how to medically treat diseases like MS in trans people. We’re still learning, and I’ll be the first to admit that. What I can say is that there are many binary trans people who are not trying to replace legal definitions of sex with gender, but rather are trying to expand the legal definitions of sex to those who, for all intents and purposes, are biologically male or female.

JKR: “I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.”

Response:  I would very much like to see the studies that you are referencing in this “huge explosion” of detransitioning individuals. If you’re referencing the article by Lisa Littman, it is definitely worth noting that her study was a) descriptive rather than empirical and b) based on the testimonials of parents and not the actual trans youth.

According to a different and arguably more experienced researcher, Dr. Johanna Olsen, regret and detransitioning as you talk about it are extremely rare. I encourage you to watch her video below and read over some of the other research she is and has been doing.

Even if we were to listen to descriptive research such as Littman’s and assume that there are people who wish to detransition, the lack of fertility you’re talking about is not universal and, as with people assigned female at birth, varies. According to recent studies, trans men who wish to reproduce biologically can take a break from testosterone while carrying their children and resume afterwards. So far, there are no negative side effects for the children of transmen.

What should also be considered, especially in youth, is that hormone blockers are entirely reversible. But puberty is not. When trans children are put on hormone blockers, they are essentially delaying permanent puberty and taking time to examine whether it’s right for them. Access to medical care such as hormone blockers are essential to trans youth because it does give them time to figure out their identity before going through the male or female puberty that affects them.

I have not seen any cases of transition driven by homophobia, but would like to note that working to make parents less homophobic and transphobic seems to be a better use of time than arguing against the right of many trans youth who do need access to medical intervention.

JKR: “The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’”

Response: This point is one of the more frustrating parts of your article because it is using one medical professional’s opinion to ignore a horrifying truth. Trans adults and youths experience suicidality and depression at staggering rates. While I cannot comment on studies in the UK, here in the US the lifetime suicide ideation rates for trans adults is 81.7%. The attempt rate is 40.4%, almost 10x the national average of 4.6%. 

And those are just the statistics of the people who survived long enough to participate in the study. Denying the real threat of suicidality in trans youth is not only saddening - it is actively harmful.

JKR: “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

Response: This is one of the most frequent arguments I see for people denying trans men their identity. My own mother has suggested that I transitioned to escape sexism. To this, I respond that choosing to transition does not provide an escape to discrimination and harrassment. I was well aware, when choosing to come out and transition, of the statistics of discrimination I was entering. I was well aware that it might mean the loss of my athletic scholarship, the dismissal of the team of sisters that I played on, It was not a matter of escaping sexism, but rather a matter of being my most authentic self. Even if you dismiss my own personal experience, I would point to the trans women who actively transition and give up their male privilege in exchange for the trials and tribulations of womanhood. Either way, I can assure you that the suicidality trans people experience makes the “choice” to transition no more of a choice than raising your hands because a gun is pointed at your head. 

JKR:  “ I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria”

Response:  I appreciate your recognition of our reality! I would love to see the studies that present a 30% difference. In my experience, those of us that lived long enough to see adulthood have not grown out of dysphoria, even if we’ve learned coping strategies to make it bearable. And again, hormone blockers for teens allow the opportunity for them to grow however they need to without permanent changes being made.

JKR:  “So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

Response:  Once again I cannot speak to the politics or legislation of the UK. What I can say is that “bathroom bans” on trans people that require us to use the fitting room/bathroom/locker room of the sex we were assigned at birth lead to significant sexual and physical assault on trans people, which already face a disproportionate risk (as you mentioned). I personally have been fortunate enough to have not been physically assaulted when I was trying to go to the bathroom, but have been harassed in both mens and womens bathrooms (which I varied between during my transition, depending on how well I thought I was passing). Many of my friends are not as lucky.

JKR:  “But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive.”

Response:  The implication that trans women - who are literally dying to be acknowledged as women - putting on a “costume” is flagrantly offensive. I am choosing to believe that you did not intend this implication and instead are confusing sex and gender. In which case,would refer you to the seminal work Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler. According to her, gender is literally a performance that one chooses to express. Transwomen define their gender and femininity as individuals, and do not choose to go through the grueling process of changing their biological sex because they like Jimmy Choos. The gender ‘woman’ is not a “pink brain” but rather an identity that can be inwardly cultivated and outwardly expressed. The sex ‘woman’ or female is an amalgamation of complex physiological systems that, as we’ve already discussed, can be altered. 

JKR: “I refuse to bow down to a movement...” 

Response: There is undeniably a movement, a “cancel culture” that dismisses nuanced conversation. I, like you, am concerned about the erosion of free speech and the expression of alternative points of view in nuanced discussions such as this one. But this movement is not specific to trans people and should not be described as such. Most trans activists and researchers that I know are not asking you to “bow down.” We’re asking you to come to the table and have an open mind. We’re asking you to use your huge platform to help trans people (as you clearly want to) without harming them (as you clearly have).

JKR: “...that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.”

Response: This is the crux of the “TERF wars”. The refusal to accept trans women as women. To this, I would simply say: Acknowledging that trans women are women is not the erosion of a political and biological class. It is strengthening those classes by accepting the women who, despite all threats of assault or death, stand by their identity and celebrate womanhood.

#long post #essay #jk rowling #response #harry potter #transmen #ftm #mtf #transphobia #transwomen #trans #LGBT #terf #terf wars

[eruptionsanddisasters]

The Role of the Behavioral Scientist in the Civil Rights Movement

By Martin Luther King Jr.

It is always a very rich and rewarding experience when I can take a brief break from the day-to-day demands of our struggle for freedom and human dignity and discuss the issues involved in that struggle with concerned friends of good will all over the nation. It is particularly a great privilege to discuss these issues with members of the academic community, who are constantly writing about and dealing with the problems that we face and who have the tremendous responsibility of molding the minds of young men and women all over the country.

The Civil Rights Movement needs the help of social scientists

In the preface to their book, 'Applied Sociology' (1965), S. M. Miller and Alvin Gouldner state: 'It is the historic mission of the social sciences to enable mankind to take possession of society.' It follows that for Negroes who substantially are excluded from society this science is needed even more desperately than for any other group in the population.

For social scientists, the opportunity to serve in a life-giving purpose is a humanist challenge of rare distinction. Negroes too are eager for a rendezvous with truth and discovery. We are aware that social scientists, unlike some of their colleagues in the physical sciences, have been spared the grim feelings of guilt that attended the invention of nuclear weapons of destruction. Social scientists, in the main, are fortunate to be able to extirpate evil, not to invent it.

If the Negro needs social sciences for direction and for self-understanding, the white society is in even more urgent need. White America needs to understand that it is poisoned to its soul by racism and the understanding needs to be carefully documented and consequently more difficult to reject. The present crisis arises because although it is historically imperative that our society take the next step to equality, we find ourselves psychologically and socially imprisoned. All too many white Americans are horrified not with conditions of Negro life but with the product of these conditions-the Negro himself.

White America is seeking to keep the walls of segregation substantially intact while the evolution of society and the Negro's desperation is causing them to crumble. The white majority, unprepared and unwilling to accept radical structural change, is resisting and producing chaos while complaining that if there were no chaos orderly change would come.

Negroes want the social scientist to address the white community and 'tell it like it is.' White America has an appalling lack of knowledge concerning the reality of Negro life. One reason some advances were made in the South during the past decade was the discovery by northern whites of the brutal facts of southern segregated life. It was the Negro who educated the nation by dramatizing the evils through nonviolent protest. The social scientist played little or no role in disclosing truth. The Negro action movement with raw courage did it virtually alone. When the majority of the country could not live with the extremes of brutality they witnessed, political remedies were enacted and customs were altered.

These partial advances were, however, limited principally to the South and progress did not automatically spread throughout the nation. There was also little depth to the changes. White America stopped murder, but that is not the same thing as ordaining brotherhood; nor is the ending of lynch rule the same thing as inaugurating justice.

After some years of Negro-white unity and partial success, white America shifted gears and went into reverse. Negroes, alive with hope and enthusiasm, ran into sharply stiffened white resistance at all levels and bitter tensions broke out in sporadic episodes of violence. New lines of hostility were drawn and the era of good feeling disappeared.

The decade of 1955 to 1965, with its constructive elements, misled us. Everyone, activists and social scientists, underestimated the amount of violence and rage Negroes were suppressing and the amount of bigotry the white majority was disguising.

Science should have been employed more fully to warn us that the Negro, after 350 years of handicaps, mired in an intricate network of contemporary barriers, could not be ushered into equality by tentative and superficial changes.

Mass nonviolent protests, a social invention of Negroes, were effective in Montgomery, Birmingham and Selma in forcing national legislation which served to change Negro life sufficiently to curb explosions. But when changes were confined to the South alone, the North, in the absence of change, began to seethe.

The freedom movement did not adapt its tactics to the different and unique northern urban conditions. It failed to see that nonviolent marches in the South were forms of rebellion. When Negroes took over the streets and shops, southern society shook to its roots. Negroes could contain their rage when they found the means to force relatively radical changes in their environment.

In the North, on the other hand, street demonstrations were not even a mild expression of militancy. The turmoil of cities absorbs demonstrations as merely transitory drama which is ordinary in city life. Without a more effective tactic for upsetting the status quo, the power structure could maintain its intransigence and hostility. Into the vacuum of inaction, violence and riots flowed and a new period opened.

Urban riots.

Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. This may explain why most cities in which riots have occurred have not had a repetition, even though the causative conditions remain. It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity.

A profound judgment of today's riots was expressed by Victor Hugo a century ago. He said, 'If a soul is left in the darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.'

The policymakers of the white society have caused the darkness; they create discrimination; they structured slums; and they perpetuate unemployment, ignorance and poverty. It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society. When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society.

Vietnam War.

There is another cause of riots that is too important to mention casually-the war in Vietnam. Here again, we are dealing with a controversial issue. But I am convinced that the war in Vietnam has played havoc with our domestic destinies. The bombs that fall in Vietnam explode at home. It does not take much to see what great damage this war has done to the image of our nation. It has left our country politically and morally isolated in the world, where our only friends happen to be puppet nations like Taiwan, Thailand and South Korea. The major allies in the world that have been with us in war and peace are not with us in this war. As a result we find ourselves socially and politically isolated.

The war in Vietnam has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has seriously impaired the United Nations. It has exacerbated the hatreds between continents, and worse still, between races. It has frustrated our development at home by telling our underprivileged citizens that we place insatiable military demands above their most critical needs. It has greatly contributed to the forces of reaction in America, and strengthened the military-industrial complex, against which even President Eisenhower solemnly warned us. It has practically destroyed Vietnam, and left thousands of American and Vietnamese youth maimed and mutilated. And it has exposed the whole world to the risk of nuclear warfare.

As I looked at what this war was doing to our nation, and to the domestic situation and to the Civil Rights movement, I found it necessary to speak vigorously out against it. My speaking out against the war has not gone without criticisms. There are those who tell me that I should stick with civil rights, and stay in my place. I can only respond that I have fought too hard and long to end segregated public accommodations to segregate my own moral concerns. It is my deep conviction that justice is indivisible, that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. For those who tell me I am hurting the Civil Rights movement, and ask, 'Don't you think that in order to be respected, and in order to regain support, you must stop talking against the war?' I can only say that I am not a consensus leader. I do not seek to determine what is right and wrong by taking a Gallop Poll to determine majority opinion. And it is again my deep conviction that ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus, but a molder of consensus. On some positions cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?!' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But conscience must ask the question, 'Is it right?!' And there comes a time when one must take a stand that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular. But one must take it because it is right. And that is where I find myself today.

Moreover, I am convinced, even if war continues, that a genuine massive act of concern will do more to quell riots than the most massive deployment of troops.

Unemployment.

The unemployment of Negro youth ranges up to 40 percent in some slums. The riots are almost entirely youth events-the age range of participants is from 13 to 25. What hypocrisy it is to talk of saving the new generation-to make it the generation of hope-while consigning it to unemployment and provoking it to violent alternatives.

When our nation was bankrupt in the thirties we created an agency to provide jobs to all at their existing level of skill. In our overwhelming affluence today what excuse is there for not setting up a national agency for full employment immediately?

The other program which would give reality to hope and opportunity would be the demolition of the slums to be replaced by decent housing built by residents of the ghettos.

These programs are not only eminently sound and vitally needed, but they have the support of an overwhelming majority of the nation-white and Negro. The Harris Poll on August 21, 1967, disclosed that an astounding 69 percent of the country support a works program to provide employment to all and an equally astonishing 65 percent approve a program to tear down the slums.

There is a program and there is heavy majority support for it. Yet, the administration and Congress tinker with trivial proposals to limit costs in an extravagant gamble with disaster.

The President has lamented that he cannot persuade Congress. He can, if the will is there, go to the people, mobilize the people's support and thereby substantially increase his power to persuade Congress. Our most urgent task is to find the tactics that will move the government no matter how determined it is to resist.

Civil disobedience.

I believe we will have to find the militant middle between riots on the one hand and weak and timid supplication for justice on the other hand. That middle ground, I believe, is civil disobedience. It can be aggressive but nonviolent; it can dislocate but not destroy. The specific planning will take some study and analysis to avoid mistakes of the past when it was employed on too small a scale and sustained too briefly.

Civil disobedience can restore Negro-white unity. There have been some very important sane white voices even during the most desperate moments of the riots. One reason is that the urban crisis intersects the Negro crisis in the city. Many white decision- makers may care little about saving Negroes, but they must care about saving their cities. The vast majority of production is created in cities; most white Americans live in them. The suburbs to which they flee cannot exist detached from cities. Hence powerful white elements have goals that merge with ours.

Role for the social scientist

Now there are many roles for social scientists in meeting these problems. Kenneth Clark has said that Negroes are moved by a suicide instinct in riots and Negroes know there is a tragic truth in this observation. Social scientists should also disclose the suicide instinct that governs the administration and Congress in their total failure to respond constructively.

What other areas are there for social scientists to assist the civil rights movement? There are many, but I would like to suggest three because they have an urgent quality.

Social science may be able to search out some answers to the problem of Negro leadership. E. Franklin Frazier, in his profound work, Black Bourgeoisie, laid painfully bare the tendency of the upwardly mobile Negro to separate from his community, divorce himself from responsibility to it, while failing to gain acceptance in the white community. There has been significant improvements from the days Frazier researched, but anyone knowledgeable about Negro life knows its middle class is not yet bearing its weight. Every riot has carried strong overtone of hostility of lower class Negroes toward the affluent Negro and vice versa. No contemporary study of scientific depth has totally studied this problem. Social science should be able to suggest mechanisms to create a wholesome black unity and a sense of peoplehood while the process of integration proceeds.

As one example of this gap in research, there are no studies, to my knowledge, to explain adequately the absence of Negro trade union leadership. Eight-five percent of Negroes are working people. Some two million are in trade unions but in 50 years we have produced only one national leader-A. Philip Randolph.

Discrimination explains a great deal, but not everything. The picture is so dark even a few rays of light may signal a useful direction.

Political action.

The second area for scientific examination is political action. In the past two decades, Negroes have expended more effort in quest of the franchise than they have in all other campaigns combined. Demonstrations, sit-ins and marches, though more spectacular, are dwarfed by the enormous number of man-hours expended to register millions, particularly in the South. Negro organizations from extreme militant to conservative persuasion, Negro leaders who would not even talk to each other, all have been agreed on the key importance of voting. Stokely Carmichael said black power means the vote and Roy Wilkins, while saying black power means black death, also energetically sought the power of the ballot.

A recent major work by social scientists Matthew and Prothro concludes that 'The concrete benefits to be derived from the franchise-under conditions that prevail in the South-have often been exaggerated.,' that voting is not the key that will unlock the door to racial equality because 'the concrete measurable payoffs from Negro voting in the South will not be revolutionary' (1966).

James A. Wilson supports this view, arguing, 'Because of the structure of American politics as well as the nature of the Negro community, Negro politics will accomplish only limited objectives' (1965).

If their conclusion can be supported, then the major effort Negroes have invested in the past 20 years has been in the wrong direction and the major pillar of their hope is a pillar of sand. My own instinct is that these views are essentially erroneous, but they must be seriously examined.

The need for a penetrating massive scientific study of this subject cannot be overstated. Lipset in 1957 asserted that a limitation in focus in political sociology has resulted in a failure of much contemporary research to consider a number of significant theoretical questions. The time is short for social science to illuminate this critically important area. If the main thrust of Negro effort has been, and remains, substantially irrelevant, we may be facing an agonizing crisis of tactical theory.

The third area for study concerns psychological and ideological changes in Negroes. It is fashionable now to be pessimistic. Undeniably, the freedom movement has encountered setbacks. Yet I still believe there are significant aspects of progress.

Negroes today are experiencing an inner transformation that is liberating them from ideological dependence on the white majority. What has penetrated substantially all strata of Negro life is the revolutionary idea that the philosophy and morals of the dominant white society are not holy or sacred but in all too many respects are degenerate and profane.

Negroes have been oppressed for centuries not merely by bonds of economic and political servitude. The worst aspect of their oppression was their inability to question and defy the fundamental precepts of the larger society. Negroes have been loath in the past to hurl any fundamental challenges because they were coerced and conditioned into thinking within the context of the dominant white ideology. This is changing and new radical trends are appearing in Negro thought. I use radical in its broad sense to refer to reaching into roots.

Ten years of struggle have sensitized and opened the Negro's eyes to reaching. For the first time in their history, Negroes have become aware of the deeper causes for the crudity and cruelty that governed white society's responses to their needs. They discovered that their plight was not a consequence of superficial prejudice but was systemic.

The slashing blows of backlash and frontlash have hurt the Negro, but they have also awakened him and revealed the nature of the oppressor. To lose illusions is to gain truth. Negroes have grown wiser and more mature and they are hearing more clearly those who are raising fundamental questions about our society whether the critics be Negro or white. When this process of awareness and independence crystallizes, every rebuke, every evasion, become hammer blows on the wedge that splits the Negro from the larger society.

Social science is needed to explain where this development is going to take us. Are we moving away, not from integration, but from the society which made it a problem in the first place? How deep and at what rate of speed is this process occurring? These are some vital questions to be answered if we are to have a clear sense of our direction.

We know we haven't found the answers to all forms of social change. We know, however, that we did find some answers. We have achieved and we are confident. We also know we are confronted now with far greater complexities and we have not yet discovered all the theory we need.

And may I say together, we must solve the problems right here in America. As I have said time and time again, Negroes still have faith in America. Black people still have faith in a dream that we will all live together as brothers in this country of plenty one day.

But I was distressed when I read in the New York Times of Aug. 31, 1967; that a sociologist from Michigan State University, the outgoing president of the American Sociological Society, stated in San Francisco that Negroes should be given a chance to find an all Negro community in South America: 'that the valleys of the Andes Mountains would be an ideal place for American Negroes to build a second Israel.' He further declared that 'The United States Government should negotiate for a remote but fertile land in Equador, Peru or Bolivia for this relocation.'

I feel that it is rather absurd and appalling that a leading social scientist today would suggest to black people, that after all these years of suffering an exploitation as well as investment in the American dream, that we should turn around and run at this point in history. I say that we will not run! Professor Loomis even compared the relocation task of the Negro to the relocation task of the Jews in Israel. The Jews were made exiles. They did not choose to abandon Europe, they were driven out. Furthermore, Israel has a deep tradition, and Biblical roots for Jews. The Wailing Wall is a good example of these roots. They also had significant financial aid from the United States for the relocation and rebuilding effort. What tradition does the Andes, especially the valley of the Andes Mountains, have for Negroes?

And I assert at this time that once again we must reaffirm our belief in building a democratic society, in which blacks and whites can live together as brothers, where we will all come to see that integration is not a problem, but an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.

The problem is deep. It is gigantic in extent, and chaotic in detail. And I do not believe that it will be solved until there is a kind of cosmic discontent enlarging in the bosoms of people of good will all over this nation.

There are certain technical words in every academic discipline which soon become stereotypes and even clichés. Every academic discipline has its technical nomenclature. You who are in the field of psychology have given us a great word. It is the word maladjusted. This word is probably used more than any other word in psychology. It is a good word; certainly it is good that in dealing with what the word implies you are declaring that destructive maladjustment should be destroyed. You are saying that all must seek the well-adjusted life in order to avoid neurotic and schizophrenic personalities.

But on the other hand, I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted. There are some things concerning which we must always be maladjusted if we are to be people of good will. We must never adjust ourselves to racial discrimination and racial segregation. We must never adjust ourselves to religious bigotry. We must never adjust ourselves to economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. We must never adjust ourselves to the madness of militarism, and the self-defeating effects of physical violence.

In a day when Sputniks, Explorers and Geminies are dashing through outer space, when guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can finally win a war. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence, it is either nonviolence or nonexistence. As President Kennedy declared, 'Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.' And so the alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a suspension in the development and use of nuclear weapons, the alternative to strengthening the United Nations and eventually disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation. Our earthly habitat will be transformed into an inferno that even Dante could not envision.

Creative maladjustment.

Thus, it may well be that our world is in dire need of a new organization, The International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment. Men and women should be as maladjusted as the prophet Amos, who in the midst of the injustices of his day, could cry out in words that echo across the centuries, 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream'; or as maladjusted as Abraham Lincoln, who in the midst of his vacillations finally came to see that this nation could not survive half slave and half free; or as maladjusted as Thomas Jefferson, who in the midst of an age amazingly adjusted to slavery, could scratch across the pages of history, words lifted to cosmic proportions, 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. And that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' And through such creative maladjustment, we may be able to emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man's inhumanity to man, into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice.

I have not lost hope. I must confess that these have been very difficult days for me personally. And these have been difficult days for every civil rights leader, for every lover of justice and peace.

(Copyright 1967 by Martin Luther King Jr. Copyright renewed 1994 by Coretta Scott King. Reprinted by permission by the heirs to the estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., care of Writers' House as agents for the proprietors.)

#civilrightsmovement #social analysis #mlk #protests and riots #essay

[donotdisturbb]

A New Era for Social Movements

As I have already acknowledged, the internet is considered a space that encourages users to participate and discuss where new digital technologies have the power to influence society and create social change. The internet has immense potential for activism, reform, and debate that should actively endorse a notion of a free, all-inclusive, participatory space (Barker & Jurasz, 2019a). While this is reflected in some cases of digital political activism, such as the case of the Arab Spring and the impactful role of social media, especially for women. Recent patterns of online abuse and misuse have tainted its potential for success (Barker & Baghdady, 2018). While we can acknowledge successful movements, web 2.0 has simultaneously opened spheres for negativity, notably online forms of sexism, harassment, and misogyny. 

                            Click here to see original source of image

The extent of this is shown in recent studies that reveal a significant percentage of women and girls to have experienced online abuse motivated explicitly by gender discrimination (Barker & Jurasz, 2019b). Amnesty International (2017) reported as a result of this, women are much more likely to develop harmful psychological effects. Historically women have experienced oppression, and unfortunately, in the digital sphere, that has not changed. Online spaces are notoriously unwelcoming and inimical places for women who fear to speak out against the crowd or offer opinions (Barker & Jurasz, 2019a). Often women are victims of backlash for expressing their opinion, which subsequently jeopardises their right to participate freely and equally online (Lane, 2015). This is particularly salient in online violence against women in politics. 

A study conducted by Amnesty International revealed how women in politics receive significant online abuse. Additionally, those with intersecting personalities experience considerably more (Dhrodia, 2017). An example of this would be in the case of Dianne Abbott. Abbott was the first black woman to enter Parliament and was targeted with over 8,000 vicious tweets in the initial six months of 2017 (Amnesty International, 2018). The most concerning part was that the tweets were not aimed at her political views but rather directed at her as a woman, specifically a black woman (Dhrodia, 2017). This illustrates how "gender equality has not been reached in the context of public participation, especially in political spheres" (Leanne Wood 2019; as cited in Barker & Jurasz, 2019a, p. 101). Consequently, women are less willing to participate online, which has detrimental impacts on gender representation in online public and political discussions.

                            Click here to see original source of image 

While the internet has the power to reverse the above and facilitate democratization to ensure women's voices are heard, it also allows for other voices that prevent this to be accepted without challenge. Social media can act as an echo chamber for anti-feminist agendas which are difficult to overcome when they stem from influential public figures. Donald Trump has been subject to scrutiny after questions regarding his past concerning his ill-treatment of women. Jeva Lange writes about 61 things Trump has said about women including:

 "Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on" (Lange, 2018, para 7). 

Thus, how can equality be achieved when those with the power to make legislative change hold such bygone and prejudicial views?

Feminism must develop to confront these new challenges, and with the rise in reputable feminist movements such as #MeToo, online violence against women is becoming increasingly reported, documented, and critiqued globally (Barker & Jurasz, 2019a). As expressed in a previous post, this is another example of the relocation of an offline phenomenon into a digital phenomenon (Qi et al., 2018), but also a striking realisation that the media remains an obstacle to the evolution of the feminist movement, gender equality, and equality of participation online.

References

Amnesty International. (2017, November 20). Amnesty reveals alarming impact of online abuse against women. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/amnesty-reveals-alarming-impact-of-online-abuse-against-women/

Amnesty International. (2018). Annual Report 2017/18. In Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/02/annual-report-201718/

Barker, K, & Baghdady, C. (2018). From hybrid to cybrid? The formation and regulation of online “hybrid” identities. In Hybridity: Law, Culture and Development (pp. 216–236). Abingdon: Routledge.

Barker, Kim, & Jurasz, O. (2019a). Online Misogyny: A Challenge for Digital Feminism? Journal of International Affairs, 72(2), 95–113.

Barker, Kim, & Jurasz, O. (2019b). Online Misogyny as a Hate Crime: A Challenge for Legal Regulation? Routledge.

Dhrodia, A. (2017, September 4). Unsocial Media: Tracking Twitter Abuse Against Women MPs. https://medium.com/@AmnestyInsights/unsocial-media-tracking-twitter-abuse-against-women-mps-fc28aeca498a

Lane, L. (2015). Feminist Rhetoric in the Digital Sphere: Digital Interventions & the Subversion of Gendered Cultural Scripts. A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, 1.

Lange, J. (2018, October 16). 61 Things Donald Trump Has Said About Women. The Week. https://theweek.com/articles/655770/61-things-donald-trump-said-about-women

Qi, J., Monod, E., Fang, B., & Deng, S. (2018). Theories of Social Media: Philosophical Foundations. Engineering, 4(1), 94–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.02.009

[wheremyscalesslither]

An Excellent Summation on Ball Pythons Myths and the call for Enrichment by Francis Cosquieri

Below is a very long, but detailed explanation of the myths of keeping ball pythons in small tubs and how enrichment directly benefits snakes and other reptiles.

[This guy wrote it in this facebook group on this post]

Mobile users, please click the tumblr source for the entire post.

Royal Pythons are not actually all THAT sedate - the idea of the "sedentary" Royal Python that spends its life in dark holes has been bandied about for a few decades because the snakes aestivate in burrows during the hottest parts of the year, and this is when they are easiest for the trappers to locate. This does not mean they spend their whole lives underground, nor does it mean they are "ambush predators" that sit and wait most of their lives - on the contrary they are surprisingly active "search hunters" that happen to do most of their hunting at night and, in the case of adult females, hunt in burrows for rodents. Males and smaller animals exhibit a completely different mode of hunting - they climb trees and target a completely different source of food. We know this from a variety of sources: "Survey of the status and management of the Royal Python (Python regius) in Ghana" lists pythons being found in trees, although points out that the species is very adaptable to the point of being semi-invasive and responds well to anthropogenic disturbance. It also mentions a specimen being found up a tree. "Food resource partitioning of a community of snakes in a swamp rainforest of south-eastern Nigeria" lists woodpeckers and warblers (both consummately arboreal species that do not spend much if any time on the ground) as among the most numerous prey retrieved from Royal Python stomach (Cisticola warblers were the single prey genus that had the highest number found in Royal Pythons during the survey). "Why do males and females of Python regius differ in parasite load" points out that males (which are more arboreal) carry different and much higher parasite loads than females, possibly as a result of the differences in habitat use. "Jebels By Moonlight" lists a first hand observation of a Royal Python hunting in a tree in Sudan. "Sexual size dimorphism and natural history traits are correlated with intersexual dietary divergence in royal pythons (python regius) from the rainforests of southeastern Nigeria" - half of the male pythons encountered over a two year period were found on trees. The diet of male pythons under a certain size had a huge percentage of birds and arboreal mammals. "Species trade and conservation: Snake trade and conservation management (Serpentes.spp.) An assessment of the impact of the pet trade on five CITES-Appendix II case studies" lists the species as being both terrestrial and tree-dwelling animals. The fact is Royal Pythons are extraordinarily adaptive snakes that can tolerate a wide variety of habitats and are not negatively affected by anthropogenic change to the same extent as many other reptiles are. They can be terrestrial AND semi-arboreal depending on the habitats they inhabit, although according to studies by authors such as Luca Luiselli they reach their highest population densities in forested areas as opposed to grassland. It is worth noting that males especially seem to have adapted to fit a different niche to the larger females to the point that diet composition is almost totally different in several studies, and includes a significant percentage of birds and arboreal mammals that are most likely being stalked and captured in trees at night. They are also picking up a completely different parasite load because of this! Within the confines of a terrarium, there is no reason whatsoever to not provide at least one or two branches for the snake to climb on. Nor is there no reason not to provide overhead lighting or UV. It is simply common sense. To quote Frances Baines from another post on the subject in this group , "Why, for example, do we have to find a 1961 book on African Reptiles (by G. S. Cansdale) to find that the Royal Python "in the wild is often encountered sunning in bright light" (quoted by Sillman, A.J., Carver, J.K. and Loew, E.R., 1999. The photoreceptors and visual pigments in the retina of a boid snake, the ball python (Python regius). Journal of Experimental Biology, 202(14), pp.1931-1938. Indeed that was my experience also with at least one specimen I found in the wild! (Another good point there - Royal Pythons see UV very well. That is not really something you would expect a nocturnal animal to do). Personally I think if people like the security and humidity of a tub for their Royals - put one with an access hole inside the vivarium and let the animal decide where it wants to be. That pretty much approximates a burrow with a constant temperature and humidity in a much drier environment. If the snakes like security and confined spaces soooooooo much, they surely would never come out, right? Having tried this myself, and having seen first hand other people's enclosures offering a choice of places to climb, correct lighting, and an enriched habitat - along with seeing how the snakes themselves respond to it - I simply cannot see how anybody thinks a sterile tub with newspaper compares,

There are actually no specific papers regarding enrichment studies in Royal Pythons that I am aware of, however there ARE very convincing ones for a wide range of other snakes including Jamaican Boas and Burmese Pythons that are fairly categoric on the effect enrichment has on these animals. As a result, there is actually quite a lot of evidence that it DOES matter if a snake uses everything in its enclosure and is given an enriched environment as opposed to a sterile one.... there is simply NO way to refute the accumulated body of evidence on that score whatsoever. Whatsmore, the notion that "there is no way of telling whether the snake is happier/ acting differently" or that "the snake won't act naturally" is quite mistaken - reptiles provide a unique opportunity to investigate the influence of experience and the environment on behaviour. Their very morphology and dependence on real variables such as temperature link them to both physical forces and the spatial configuration of their environment and thus, they may be particularly responsive to environmental manipulations via enrichment. Most importantly, they are precocial and typically do not live in social groups thus eliminating this confounding variable in enrichment studies. What this means is that it is actually very easy to study behavioural changes and preferences in these animals and there have been quite a few studies presented that attempt to do just that by behaviourally testing snakes housed in enriched and standard conditions. I can list some very good papers here that are well worth checking out for those that are not sure whether there really is a difference for reptiles kept in enriched enclosures, many of them available for free on this page: Environmental Enrichment Alters the Behavioral Profile of Ratsnakes (Elaphe) Lynn M. Almli and Gordon M. Burghardt Habitat Manipulation in Hunting Rattlesnakes (Crotalus Species) Pitman B and Clarke R. Some Observations on Snakes Riot Takatsuki, Psychological Institute, Keijo Imperial University. The importance of enrichment for advancing amphibian welfare and conservation goals: A review of a neglected topic Christopher J. Michaels , J. Roger Downie, and Roisin Campbell-Palmer Using student-centred research to evidence- base exhibition of reptiles and amphibians: three species-specific case studies Rose, Nash, Ferguson et al. Experiments of Odor Enrichments Affect Behavior of Species of Snakes Mao Jie Zuo Zhili Yang Xiaoyi Cheng Jian Xie Yi (Chengdu Zoo & Chengdu Wildlife Research Institute,Chengdu,610081,China) Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 391 - 398 A Critical Review of Zoo-based Olfactory Enrichment Does Enrichment Improve Reptile Welfare? Leopard Geckos (Eublepharis macularius) respond to Five Kinds of Environmental Enrichment Bashaw, Gibson et al. The physiological and behavioural impacts of and preference for an enriched environment in the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina) Beth C. Casea,*, Gregory A. Lewbarta, Phillip D. Doerrb An Assessment of Environmental Enrichment on Morphology and Behavior of Yearling Rat Snakes (Elaphe obsoleta). ***8220; Almli, Lynn M., 2004. Master***8217;s Thesis, University of Tennessee Corticosterone suppresses immune activity in territorial Galápagos marine iguanas during reproduction. Berger, S. et al., 2005. Hormones and Behavior, Environmental enrichment and cognitive complexity in reptiles and amphibians: Concepts, review, and implications for captive populations. Burghardt, G. M., 2013. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Problem of reptile play: Environmental enrichment and play behavior in a captive Nile soft-shelled turtle, Trionyx triunguis. Burghardt, G. M., Ward, B. & Rosscoe, R., 1996. , Zoo Biology Personality Traits Are Expressed in Bullfrog Tadpoles during Open-Field Trials. Carlson, B. E. & Langkilde, T., 2013. Journal of Herpetology Visual discrimination and reversal learning in rough-necked monitor lizards (Varanus rudicollis).. Gaalema, D. E., 2011. Journal of Comparative Psychology Using Operant Conditioning and Desensitization to Facilitate Veterinary Care with Captive Reptiles. Hellmuth, H., Augustine, L., Watkins, B. & Hope, K., 2012. Exotic Animal Practice Spatial learning of an escape task by young corn snakes, Elaphe guttata guttata, Holtzman, Harris et al, 1999. Animal Behaviour Vol. 57, Issue 1 From slither to hither: Orientation and spatial learning in snakes. Holtzman, D. A., 1999. Integrative Biology Investigatory behavior in snakes, II: Cage cleaning and the induction of defecation in snakes Chiszar, Wellborn et al, 1980. Animal Learning and Behaviour, Vol 8. Issue 3 Spatial learning of an escape task by young corn snakes,Elaphe guttata guttata. Holtzman, D. A., Harris, T. W., Aranguren, G. & Bostock, E., 1999. Animal Behaviour Environmental Enrichment for Dendrobatid Frogs. Hurme, K. et al., 2003. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Operant conditioning in the indigo snake. Kleinginna Jr., P. R., 1970. Psychonomic Science Zoo-Academic Collaborations: Physiological and Psychological Needs of Reptiles and Amphibians. Kreger, M. D., 1993. Herptologica Behavioural flexibility and problem-solving in a tropical lizard. Leal, M. & Powell, B. J., 2011.Biology Letters Experimental evaluation of environmental enrichment of sea turtles. Therrien, C. L., Gaster, L., Cunningham-Smith, P. & Manire, C. A., Zoo Biology 2007 An experimental test of the link between foraging, habitat selection and thermoregulation in black rat snakes Elaphe obsoleta obsoleta G Blouin-Demers, Journal of Animal Ecology 2001 Assessing environmental enrichment for juvenile Jamaican boas Epicrates subflavus Stejneger, 1901 Dodo, Journal of the Jersey Wildlife and Preservation Trust 1996 Investigatory behavior inthe plains garter snake (Thamnophis radix) and several additional species Chiszar, Carter et al, 1976. Animal Learning and Behaviour, Vol 4, Issue 3 Each of these studies (and there are many more, this is really just a sampling) presents a different example of how experimental procedure can be used to infer preference and the effects of enrichment among reptiles and amphibians. In short, there may be no paper specifically on the effects of enrichment on Royal Pythons (YET) but to expect that because of this the evidence for it is inconsequential would be a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of the evidence provided above (some of which concerns other pythons and boas). One more point to make to wrap up this post - many will state that "breeding" in tubs is evidence that they are adequate. In fact there is recent evidence presented that long-term stressful environments can encourage breeding in snakes (biologically this is a sound strategy - in an inhospitable environment, producing as many offspring as possible so that there is a greater chance at least some will survive is a common reproductive strategy!). So the idea that people having successes breeding this hardiest of pet snakes, which is known to be so adaptive as to be semi-invasive in parts of the world, is not really that strong evidence at all.

#enrichment #tiny tubs #tiny tub discourse #ball python myths

[illionoisprelawland-blog]

With Liberty and Justice for Most: Fixing Gaps In Employee Protections

By Olivia Reeves, University of Chicago Class of 2021

April 25, 2019

The equal-opportunity conceptual cornerstone of American society is valid today, but not for everyone. Those that don’t always make the cut, including African Americans, women, people with disabilities, immigrants, and more, have had to fight for their rights over the course of decades and even centuries. The next battle ahead appears to center on the LGBTQ employee population, who today are still not protected by equal employment policy on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.  As a result, structures of law are under scrutiny after a half-century in action, and the Supreme Court must dust off old cases in order to shape new ones for a changing country fighting for liberty and justice to really apply to all.

Beginning in 1964, Congress made waves with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, or nationality, and, in the case of the all-important Title VII, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in employment.The document explicitly states, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” [1]

Title VII is enforced today by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a government organization established one year after the Civil Rights Act’s passage, which acts as a watchdog in every state to protect vulnerable classes and advocate against discriminatory employment practices. [2]

Today, Title VII has five protected classes: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. [3] The definition of sex, however, has been a source of contention since its inclusion in Title VII, from debates of what constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex to what presupposes unequal treatment directly and indirectly. Over the last fifty-five years, the Supreme Court has mediated a number of groundbreaking cases that honed the scope and boundaries of Title VII to match the changing needs of a changing workplace.

In October of 2019, the Supreme Court will take the needs of the modern workplace into consideration once again, considering formally for the first time the merit of including sexual orientation and gender identityamong the protected classes of Title VII. The cases Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda will be considered together, and collectively will require the Court to decide whether sexual orientation discrimination by an employer is a violation of “basis of sex” law. The case of R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC will be considered separately, and invokes the question of whether transgender employees are similarly protected by Title VII. [4]

With a conservative-majority Court whose most recent addition caused national division, coupled with incredibly varied opinions from lower courts, it is unclear which way the Court will rule on what are certain to become landmark cases in and of themselves. There is simultaneously a lack of and a wealth of precedent; no case has ever directly supported LGBTQ concerns in terms of employment discrimination, however several cases have tangentially paved the way for these rulings through the analysis of gender disparity and discrimination.

Favoring the plaintiffs’ collective demand for equal treatment under the law are several precedent cases considering gender presentation and equal treatment for cisgender plaintiffs, which can be read as precedent for protecting transgender employees too. One case that the Supreme Court has noted will be the foundation ofR.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC’s debates, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989), concerns a female employee who was denied a promotion by her male supervisors given that she, though arguably qualified on paper, did not conform to the gender stereotypes of a female employee.One coworker remarked that Hopkins needed “a course at charm school” to soften her edges and make her more approachably feminine in the work environment, despite the fact that no male employee was required to conform to set gender regulations to receive promotion. [5] The Supreme Court ruled that Hopkins was indeed discriminated against, affirming that it is a violation of Title VII for gender presentation, whether in alignment with gender roles or in juxtaposition, to bear any relevance in the workplace, including, in Hopkins’ case, inhibition to professional advancement. [6]A ruling in Harristhat aligns with this interpretation would support most directly the right of transgender individuals to present themselves in accordance with their gender identity, to use names and pronouns that affirm that identity and to ultimately exist in the workplace without fear of discrimination, termination, or loss of opportunity for advancement.

The case of Smith v City of Salem (2004) similarly appears to support transgender protection under the law, wherein male to female transgender firefighter Jimmie Smith, upon diagnosis of what today would be called gender dysphoria, was persecuted by his employers. They attempted to force Smith out of his job through humiliating psychological tests and harassment about his presentation as female, prompting legal action backed by the EEOC. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Smith’s favor, given that, “Sex stereotyping based on a person's gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination…” [7]Citing Price Waterhouse as a precedent, the Court determined that gender stereotypes simply cannot be the basis of employee treatment, and as such, both Hopkins’ cisgender non-conformity to femininity and Smith’s transgender nonconformity to masculinity are both protected by Title VII. This bodes favorably then for the EEOC in their upcoming Supreme Court case, especially given that Price Waterhouse is the primary precedent basis; the upcoming ruling could cement the right to gender presentation protection, which would greatly further transgender rights in the workplace.

In contrast, the rights of sexual orientation minority groups are at a legislative disadvantage at present. In a reversal of Obama-era accordance with EEOC policy, the Trump administration ruled in 2017 that sexual orientation is not protected under the category of sex as classifiedby Title VII. [8] The EEOC maintains that sex and sexual orientation are inextricably linked, given that sexual orientation discrimination against an employee stems directly from the employer, “treating him or her differently for associating with a person of the same sex.” [9] Time and time again, however, cases involving discrimination against a member of a sexual orientation minority group have largely ruled in the plaintiffs’ favors only when that discrimination is on the basis of sexual stereotyping or gender role nonconformity, such as a well-manicured male employee or a female employee who eschews makeup and jewelry, rather than on the basis of that person’s sexual orientation, thereby sidestepping discussion of sexuality factors in the discrimination or harassment altogether. [10]

At present, one of the only cases to truly address same-sex discrimination is Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) in which the plaintiff, a heterosexual male, was sexually harassed by fellow heterosexual men on the oil rig where they were employed. This harassment include verbal and physical advances that were not inherently desirous in nature but nonetheless confirmed that same-sex harassment and discrimination are protected against by Title VII. [11] This opened up the possibility for conclusive protection of minority sexual orientations under the law, by means of a ruling that took the interpretation of discrimination on the basis of sex to include not only a disadvantageous working environment formed from a libertine harassment coded to sex, but also a hostile workplace still coded to sex but without the desirous motivation. The latter environment was and is largely experienced by LGBTQ employees facing discrimination: their harassers are not necessarily working from a licentious intent, but nonetheless are discriminating on the basis of sex, namely the sex of the LGBTQ employee’s partner or spouse relative to the abused employee’s own sex.

In 2000, Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co. restricted the potential for an all-inclusive ruling. John Bibby, a gay male employee of Coca-Cola Bottling Co., was subject to assault, verbal abuse, harassment, and preventable occupational hazards all with direct indication that his sexual orientation was the motivating factor behind the discrimination. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals adapted a concept from Oncale by ruling that Bibby had no grounds to claim a Title VII violation because a) he could not prove his coworkers were sexually harassing him from a sexually licentious angle, b) he could not prove there was an attitude of hostility towards males in general at the company, and c) he could not prove that the discrimination was due to a conflict between his self-presentation and male stereotypes. [12] As such, the Court shut down this direct claim to protection for LGBTQ employees through what is effectively a loophole in the Title VII legislation that remains open today. The scope of possibility for Supreme Court rulings on this matter has hence been limited, and leaves the Supreme Court with limited precedent options in consideration of the upcoming cases.

At present, there is certainly a wealth of national support for protecting LGBTQ employees, given that approximately 69% of Americans support the idea of protective clauses for the LGBTQ community, across party, religious, gender, and state lines. [13] As of 2018, 22 states plus Washington D.C. offer equal protection against discrimination for sexual and gender minorities, and many counties and cities have similar protective policies for their LGBTQ residents despite the lack of a nationally recognized protection. [14] These regulations are not new, but their patchy enforcement and the lack of a national rule in place leave vulnerable groups exposed to hurt. In recognition of this, and despite the tenuous state of the upcoming Supreme Court rulings, the 116th Congressional House of Representatives introduced a bill on March 13, 2019 known as the Equality Act, which would amend several pieces of legislature including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include explicit mention of sexual orientation and gender identity groups as protected classes in terms of employment, public spaces, housing, legal representation, and more. [15] If it passes, this will be the confirmed protection that the Supreme Court cannot currently guarantee from precedent or possible future outcomes.

The future of equal rights employment policy hangs in the balance, with as few as nine votes ultimately determining the workplace safety and dignity of LGBTQ employees around the country for, potentially, decades to come. There is legal backing, logic, and abstracted precedent to support rulings in favor of expanding protective rights, but in the same breath there is substantial precedent to counter such expansions. With the Equality Act of 2019 on the horizon as well, the United States government has ample opportunity to update the laws to match the workforce, just as was done with the original passage of the Civil Rights Act and its subsequent rulings. America must now wait to see who among them are considered equal with “liberty and justice for all,” not only in theory, but in concrete legislative dignity as well.

 _______________________________________________________________

Olivia Reeves is a second year at the University of Chicago studying English with minors in Human Rights and Gender Studies. She plans to attend law school and focus her work in civil rights litigation.

 _______________________________________________________________

[1] Civil Rights Act of 1964 § 7, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964)

[2]Berrien, Jacqueline A. “Statement on 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 2014, www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/cra50th/index.cfm.

[3] Busby, John C. “Suspect Classification.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 28 Nov. 2018, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/suspect_classification.

[4] Chappell, Bill. “Supreme Court Will Hear Cases On LGBTQ Discrimination Protections For Employees.” NPR, NPR, 22 Apr. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/04/22/716010002/supreme-court-will-hear-cases-on-lgbtq-discrimination-protections-for-employees.

[5] Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228(1989)

[6] “Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins | Legal Momentum, www.legalmomentum.org/legal-cases/price-waterhouse-v-hopkins.

[7]Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 572 (6th Cir. 2004)

[8] Feuer, Alan. “Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 July 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html?module=inline.

[9] “What You Should Know About EEOC and the Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers.” What You Should Know: EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers, www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm.

[10] Muñoz, Shane T, and David  M Kalteux. “LGBT, the EEOC, and the Meaning of ‘Sex.’” The Florida Bar Journal, Mar. 2016, Labor and Employment Law, Vol. 90 No. 6 www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/lgbt-the-eeoc-and-the-meaning-of-sex/.

[11] Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

[12] Bibby v Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2001).

[13] Daniel Greenberg, et al. “Americans Show Broad Support for LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections.” Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), www.prri.org/research/americans-support-protections-lgbt-people/.

[14] “Movement Advancement Project | Non-Discrimination Laws.” Movement Advancement Project | Non-Discrimination Laws, Apr. 2019, www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws.

[15]Cicilline, David N. “Text - H.R.5 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Equality Act.” Congress.gov, 2 Apr. 2019, www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text.

[ecologicalbodies]

What We Are Reading: a conversation with Hannah and Emily

The term “ecological” has been defined as “relating to or concerned with the relation of living organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.” In the spirit of being in relation to all that we’re swirling in right now, we (Emily and Hannah) are sharing some of the conversations and ideas we’ve had leading up to Ecological Bodies about articles that we’ve been reading and thinking about. Everything is in relation to everything…

“The body is not a thing, an anatomical substrate; it is a performance, a function, a behavior. Soul does not have a body, it is body; body does not have a soul, it is soul...Even your skeleton and brain (organs that for example are nearly structuralized to death and physical substance) are ‘on the move’, are processes. I learnt from the embryo: Motion is primary, form is secondary. Forms comes out of motion (and not the reverse as reductionistic thinkers always propagate) and in that motion a behavior is performed.”

Jaap van der Wal, MD, PhD. in  “The Embryo in Us – A phenomenological Search for Soul and Consciousness in the prenatal Body”  

EJ: [Jumping right in] For me, this article brings to mind how we are indoctrinated in this capitalist society with the concept of a top down approach--the common perception that our brain is responsible and guiding the rest of our body. This brings up the parallel idea that political leaders and those with the most capital are responsible and dictating the rest of society.

Jaap Van Der Wal proposes a reorganization in the way we understand leadership in our body. Instead of the brain guiding the other parts, he proposes autonomy in each region, and each region being in conversation. He proposes that the brain exists in tangent with all other organs, not superior to them. I love this because it makes me think of our socio-political structure as well. If we didn’t think of our bodies as hierarchical structures that are predisposed by genes, could we think of our place in the world less vertically organized? I know that is a lofty statement. How can power be redistributed to better empower individuals? This can extend beyond physiology.

All the readings that have directly informed Ecological Bodies and this week of inquiry we’re facilitating seem to deal heavily with the concept of noticing what the fuck is happening around you. We (you and I) are all part of these systems and play into them in many ways. How do we actually observe what is going on? This is the question that keeps coming to my head. So often we go through participating with the status quo, oblivious to how we are contributing to the hierarchies around us. What is the space that allows questioning and reconsidering, and how is this cultivated?

HK: This article that you shared by Aurora Westfelt we discussed, “From oppressive structures on the dance floor to a world of dance,” is reaching for it. Like Westfelt, we have a lot of reservations about the dominate culture of the Contact Improvisation, and many other somatic practices. I appreciate her deconstruction of CI as a glorified “safer space, in which we can be physically close.” She’s speaking from her lived experience and identity, while doing her best to name the fact that we cannot step out of our positioning on the “capitalist, sexist, racist, hierarchical systems we are immersed in” when we step into these dance spaces. (FYI: For a deeper dive into this subject, I also recommend this article from an issue of Contact Quarterly. It features a conversation between mayfield brooks and Karen Nelson about IWB, improvising while black.)

However, I also have questions about the theory Westfeld brings in at the end of her article, as she seeks a way forward, so to speak. While the theorists she references--Nina Björk and Judith Butler--are wonderful, accessibility to this type of theoretical rhetoric is still an issue. We have to question socially predetermined realities of “what this is about and for whom,” as Westfeld writes. This includes the types of knowledge and theory we intake, given our identities--even the articles we’re talking about now!

I also find this article by Anna Kegler instructive, particularly as it gestures to the notion of the “spectrum” of oppression. She’s specifically talking about racism in this article.

So, if I believe there’s a binary of oppressiveness, and if I believe I’m on the “not-oppressive” side of the binary, then I can just opt out of doing that work. Yay me! But, if I see myself as sitting on as spectrum of oppressiveness, I have no choice but to acknowledge this positioning, my implicit participation in hierarchies of oppression, and I must keep listening, keep noticing repercussions, keep questioning, keep adjusting, keep decentering myself and my experience, keep modifying thought patterns, and keep modifying behavior, etc.

This idea of a spectrum also brings me back around to the import of practice and process. I cannot shake the thought that “products” and “outcomes” are so often dictated or mandated by the constraints of our capitalist society, and perhaps every outcome we create for ourselves, every commodity we create (even our dances!), and every idea we share is actually just a forced moment in time. In talking with my collaborator Zena Bibler about this phenomenon, she aptly described it as “artificial freeze-frames within more continuous time.” Every moment is a point on a lifelong spectrum of learning, and learning from that learning.

And, maybe “learning” is actually the REAL WORK, not creating products and outcomes. Maybe this, in turn, becomes an invitation to change how we weigh everything in our lives: to “redistribute” (as you’ve mentioned above), to loosen our desperate grasp on some things, especially on our narrow definitions for the world around us, and to hold more tightly to other things--which we might be overlooking. In my lived experience right now, and what I’m working with, these ideas also feel resonant.  

EJ: I also really appreciate the way Anna Kegler describes the danger of binary thinking. Thinking in binary dismisses and disregards all the space in between [and assumes that the two poles have value as foundational categories]. That space of uncertainty that requires self-reflection and consideration of multiple experiences colliding. Why is it that we are so uncomfortable with uncertainty?

Near the end of Jaap van der Wal’s interview he talks about addiction to causality. As humans we easily attach to a reason or an excuse for the way something is, whether this be in our own bodies, or in society at large. I’ve so often heard and read sentiments like, “I have this condition, because it runs in my family” or “discrimination happens because of the history in our country.” Those overly simplified causes and outcomes make us less individually accountable. Sure, those reasons might contribute to the current situation, but other factors, including those we are personally responsible for and participate in, also need to be considered.

Jaap van der Wal primarily discusses the fascination with genes, and how we point to our inherited DNA--structures as causes for anatomical, physiological, and psychological attributes. In the scientific community, my understanding is, embryology and genetics were, at one point, part of the same field. When genome mapping took off, the field split and genetics was given precedence and more funding because of the measurable  answers that were coming out of that research.

Now, these fields are merging again. How genes are expressed has much to do with environment, and embryological development, and life post-embryo. Phenomena are a result of various causes and conditions intersecting.

HK: I love it! I’m thinking about your question: “Why is it that we are so uncomfortable with uncertainty?” I wonder if it's because we’ve all internalized a twisted definition of comfort as something imperative to our lives. Uncertainty seems to be the thing that sustains life! Your question also brings me back to some of the conversations we’ve been having around naming--specifically in relationship to Luciana Achugar’s dance research through the Pleasure Project--and what it means to revel in the uncertainty about what surrounds us.

Achugar says that “naming” (e.g. that is a tomato!) without “understanding” (e.g. what is a tomato?) is a “colonial act” that halts our experiencing. Perhaps the act of “naming” something as a discrete and comprehensive phenomenon is a way to hold onto expertise, power, influence, and capital--not to mention, a way to create chasms of distance between human lived experience and everything surrounding it. Kegler is really getting at this in her aforementioned article, where she discusses the way specific terminology persists in coddling white experience.

Someone, though I can't remember who (maybe Chrysa Parkinson), said: “If I am over comprehended and over identified I can only be one thing.” Jaap van der Wal would say that we’ve been over comprehended and over identified as beings that exist in and “own” their bodies--bodies are a means to an end. In light of this, he argues that we--our very souls--are our bodies. Everything that happens to our bodies, happens to our souls, and if this is true, then life is not a means to an end!

In this way, I suppose we are working to redefine a sort of value system for ourselves, less predicated in fixity, more in fluidity, less comfortable with stability, more interested in learning from uncertainty. I’m excited where these ideas will take us, and how they will be informed and transformed as we continue researching and sharing and listening and adjusting to everything (in relation to everything!).

REFERENCES:

http://www.portlandanthroposophy.org/the-embryo-in-us-article

https://www.movementactivism.com/single-post/2017/06/01/From-oppressive-structures-on-the-dance-floor-to-a-world-of-dance

https://contactquarterly.com/cq/article-gallery/view/IWBcompressed.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-kegler/the-sugarcoated-language-of-white-fragility_b_10909350.html

https://www.liberatedbody.com/podcast/?category=Embryology

http://www.lachugar.org/the-pleasure-project/

http://audiostage.guerrillasemiotics.com/chrysa-parkinson-the-value-of-dance-as-practice/

#ecologicalbodies growinganecobod reading gardening&mindfulness retreat

[djb329-blog]

LGBT+ / Women’s Healthcare

Abortions have historically been a pretty controversial topic which is why unsurprisingly, in 1976, three years after safe abortions were legalized, a bill called the Hyde Amendment outlawed any federal funding from going towards funding abortions. And with this amendment in place, no one really has a reason to argue that we should defund organizations like Planned Parenthood. Speaker of the house, Paul Ryan, has recently announced that congress plans to defund Planned Parenthood as the first step in their repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The problem Ryan and many other republicans take with Planned Parenthood is that they provide abortions.  Not that it truly matters, but performing abortions is only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does.  The majority of their work is focused on giving cancer screening, treating and testing STIs, providing contraceptives, and so much more (mostly to low income women who wouldn’t be able to afford these services elsewhere).  One concept I don’t believe representatives like Paul Ryan understand, is that if they were to take funding away from Planned Parenthood, they would be taking zero dollars away from abortions.  Instead, they would be taking millions of dollars away from life saving healthcare that according to business insider, 2.5 million people utilize each year.      

Ok, now that I have that out of my system, let’s move on to Obamacare.  I am not an economist, nor am I an expert on healthcare systems so I won’t pretend like I know about the financial side of the ACA, or whether it’s an overall positive or negative system in that respect.  Here’s what I do know: Trump and the Republicans have promised to and likely will repeal the ACA and (hopefully) create a new healthcare system for the American people.  What I fear is that their new system will exclude the lgbt+ community, a group that according to PBS, is comprised of roughly 9 million people.  Trump himself has been fairly opaque on his opinion of the lgbt+ community, but Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, who will play a major role in reforming the healthcare system, has expressed his clearly.   

Price, a congressman and orthopedic surgeon, has very anti-lgbt+ views.  According to the Human Rights Campaign, after the supreme court ruling allowing same-sex marriage in all 50 states, Price declared that it was “a sad day for marriage”.  Price has also made comments about the lgbt+ community that provide a better idea as to what he might plan to do as Secretary of Health and Human Services, such as failing to recognize the seriousness of mental illness, and voting to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.  

According to healthypeople.gov, people in the lgbt+ community are more likely to suffer from mental illness and are 3x more likely to attempt suicide.  Back in 2008, Price downvoted a bill that would have made mental health seen to be equally important to physical health, and require health insurers to cover mental health services.  It has been widely agreed upon by organizations like the Mental Health Foundation and The American Psychological Association that poor mental health can lead to poor physical health and vis versa.  As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Price will seriously impact how our health insurance policies deal with covering mental health resources.  Under the ACA, all marketplace health care providers must provide their users with mental health care, may not charge patients who need mental health care more than any other user, and can not apply a yearly or lifetime limit to how much they’ll spend on user’s mental health care.  All three of these essential factors are tied to Obamacare and, like the anti-discrimination protections, if Obamacare goes, so does the assurance that healthcare will cover mental health related services.  Although people in the lgbt+ community are more likely to suffer from mental illnesses like depression, mental illnesses are certainly not limited to them.  Anyone can struggle with their mental health and I believe that it’s unlikely Price will recognize this when working to replace the ACA.

To focus on an issue more specific to the lgbt+ community, the ACA protects anyone in the queer community from being denied healthcare based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.  This protection is crucial because lgbt+ protections vary from state to state, but the ACA ensures that unbiased health care is provided to everyone.  Thanks the anti-discrimination provision, according to healthinsurance.org, the percent of uninsured lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals down from 22% in 2013, to 11% in 2015.  This percentage was still higher than the national uninsured rate in 2015 which was around 9%, but progress was being made.  Progress that might halt or even reverse itself if Price and his department fail to protect the lgbt+ community when creating their new health care system, which, based on Price’s history, seems like a likely possibility.  In 2011, Price voted to rescind an act that allowed openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women to serve in the military.  In 2010, Price voted against a bill that would outlaw discrimination in the work force against people based on their sexuality.  In other words, Price voted against making it illegal to not hire someone simply because they are gay.  Based on the aforementioned situations, and the anti-lgbt+ position so many people in the Trump administration publicly take, I am forced to believe that Price and Trump’s administracion will not have the needs of the lgbt+ community in mind when they work to create a new healthcare system.  It’s possible that we will go back to the sad reality of 2010 (pre-ACA) where the Center for American Progress found that over half of lgbt+ people faced discrimination within the healthcare system, and 25% of transgender people were outright denied health care.  

Again, I’m not an economist, I have no strong feelings as to whether Obamacare is an overall good or bad health care system.  But one example I feel highlights the differences between the Obama and Trump administracions is that on day one of Obama’s presidency, if you went to whitehouse.gov and typed “LGBT” into the search box, you would find eight detailed goals the administracion had to better the lives of lgbt+ Americans.  That same search on day one of Trump’s administracion procured no results.  If you go on the official website for the Department of Health and Human Services, you can read an overview of their main responsibilities.  The first paragraph says they are the “government’s principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.”  And I truly hope that Tom Price and the rest of the Trump administracion stay true to this ideal and realize that they’ve committed to help all Americans, including the 2.5 million people a year who rely on Planned Parenthood (who are mostly of lower income, and mostly women of color), as well as the lgbt+ community, who need affordable and beneficial health care just like every other American.

#planned parenthood #i stand with pp #health care #obamacare #lgbt+ health care #lgbt #lesbian #gay #bisexual #trans #transgender #pp #tom price #donald trump #the ACA #affordable care act #human rights

[organisationalbehaviour]

Internal discussion about diversity at Google

A software engineer's perspective against Google's diversity initiatives is reported below. I have decided to publish this document because it is well articulated and the topic is a top leaders’ priority, but I don’t agree with the author's ideas because:  

positive action should not always be understood as reverse discrimination;

generalisations about men’s and women’s different behaviours and preferences are not supported by evidence, despite the author’s call for a more fact-based discussion; and

I will always stand for diversity and inclusion.

The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted.

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’ have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it's a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Compassion for the weak

Disparities are due to injustices

Humans are inherently cooperative

Change is good (unstable)

Open

Idealist

Right Biases

Respect for the strong/authority

Disparities are natural and just

Humans are inherently competitive

Change is dangerous (stable)

Closed

Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it's far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed because:

They're universal across human cultures

They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

The underlying traits are highly heritable

They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just”. I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).

These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Women on average are more cooperative

Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

The male gender role is currently inflexible

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google - with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]

A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.

Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.

I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.

There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.

These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.

I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.

We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity

Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.

De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy - feeling another’s pain - causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.

Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.

Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.

Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

Google's new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued the following statement in response to the internal employee memo:

Googlers,

I'm Danielle, Google's brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we've seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.

Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I'm not going to link to it here as it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we'll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. 'Nuff said. ”

Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that's why I took this job.

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

I've been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I've never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves - TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn't end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.

Thanks,

Danielle

#diversity #google

[sweetstielow]

Are advertising creatives rebelling against the system that created us?

Building the Church

David Ogilvy once said: “If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative.” He is boldly declaring the terms of advertising creativity by giving it a Darwinian purpose. Although advertising wasn’t born in the Mad Men era, Ogilvy’s was a golden age for the industry that set a new bar for storytelling, art direction and big ideas.

In the 19th century, newspapers started relying on ads featuring slogans, images, and minimal copy for profit. But it was two major milestones I think solidified advertising as a full-blown industry: the introduction of ‘brands’ in the late 1800’s and the formation of ad agencies in the 1940’s.

The first half of the 19th century ushered in a new era of capitalism in America. The economic boom of the 1920’s saw the invention of new products and a surge in consumer goods, while corporate giants started controlling most of the country’s wealth. Shopping was no longer just buying soup, rather having the choice to buy Campbell’s. With the marketplace churning out more and more products, advertising was there to package their perception into the new American ideals. A car became a symbol of class. A shampoo became the voice of a gender.

It was advertising that built the culture around consumption. It was advertising that humanized corporations as ‘brands’. It was advertising that became the reinforcement of our freedom to choose. And advertising that exploited our socioeconomic status to sell us a better version of ourselves.

Capitalism in America isn’t designed for the greater good. By promoting individual opportunity above all, it suggests you versus them. A for-profit system creates a metric for quantitative growth and advertising perceived that our value as citizens could be intrinsically tied to profit. Advertising arguably blurred the line between church and state. People’s sense of self became conflated with the politics behind the products they bought, hailing advertising as the religion of economics.

Advertising’s capitalization of culture set the stage for discrimination, stereotyping, sexism, and ulterior profit motives that would become a source of controversy throughout the 20th century — but would also ultimately challenge us to recognize how we see ourselves.

The Creative Message

Creatives don’t think like capitalists. At our most noble, we believe that creativity has the power to innovate, make progress and move society forward. At a fundamental level we get to be arbiters of the human condition in a liberal democracy. And at our worst, well, sex sells. We look for convenient truths and shape consumer narratives that influence, inspire, engage and entertain. To a creative, value is understood as an emotional measure.

For example, good design can inspire positive feelings that lead to happiness. The dissemination of ideas can provoke. The creation of art can give us purpose. The creation of beauty; empathy. Establishing commonality builds community, and so forth. Of course, it’s really the brands that are doing all the talking, but at some point creatives started asking questions on behalf of the brands they worked for.

What if we made people think? What if we questioned the us vs them? What if we challenged the socioeconomic stereotypes set in motion by our forefathers? Creatives learned to carve out a voice of resistance in culture. One of my favorite ads of all time is the Independent’s Litany. Aired in 2000, the British newspaper provoked the viewer to question the rules of society using reverse psychology. It said a brand could defy the system and (ironically) gave permission to the consumer to challenge the status quo.If we are lucky, we get to create messages for brands that move people beyond the comfort capitalism provides.

Advertising Today

Thanks to the internet boom of the 90’s, the advertising playing field has expanded enormously. Social media’s hyper distribution of ideas at scale presents another opportunity for advertising to capitalize on culture. It’s not just a mass message in the form of a print or TV spot, it’s a highly-targeted, hyper-personalized message around sports, entertainment, art, travel, or wherever your interests lie. That it’s a conversation between you and the brand hasn’t changed — it’s just more malleable, more dynamic, more in this moment.

The internet made us more self-aware. The worst of our actions were suddenly in our faces. Our self-doubt and physical insecurities. Our century old gender stereotypes. Our capacity for bullying. Racism. Sexism. Homophobia. All started surfacing. And advertising took these truths and mirrored them back to us. Advertising challenged the norm and then repackaged it, offering up newer, timelier American ideals. Dove’s Real Beauty. Always’ Like a Girl. Burger King’s Proud Whopper. Glossier’s Body Heroes. And so on.

The rise of connected society also meant the dark side of capitalism starting at us. Brands have had to shuffle to cover up their shady business practices and bury stories about inhumane working conditions in third world countries. Consumers started to become more aware of how a for-profit model doesn’t always add up to a feel-good message.

Advertising for Progress

All of this self-awareness birthed another evolution. Advertising is now held to a standard of being on the side of progress. Our connected era has yielded a crop of brands that submit to conscious capitalism, where purpose has a say in profit’s bottom line. There are brands that make products that invest in our global future, like Patagonia, Tesla, and Apple. And there are brands starting conscious-raising, non-conforming conversations, like Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty, Thinx, Hims, Impossible Foods.

Thanks to conscious capitalism, we can now opt into the concept of for-good by choosing to buy certain brands. We can now have meaningful conversations around what that better version of ourselves is. And it goes both ways. As a copywriter, as someone who wants to contribute meaning to a soulless political system and put truth on a pedestal, I have to recognize that advertising creativity comes at a cost. There would be no platform to start these meaningful conversations if it weren’t for the system that got us here, would there? But in this Darwinian indsustry, can you fault us for just trying to survive? And so I find myself asking some questions.

How codependent are we on rebelling against the system that created us?

If there were no norm to challenge, what would our message be?

And if the status quo we question is just a product of capitalism, are we really just rebelling against a contrived version of ourselves?

When did we start to depend on mass media for validation?

Do we remember what it was like to see ourselves before we received any brand messages at all?

At best, advertising for a creative is an outlet for self-expression and an opportunity for awareness that leads to real progress.

At worst, I’ll forever be stuck in a loophole, challenging yesterday’s cultural ideologies. For better or for worse, as long as we’re buying, we’re believing.

#capitalism #creativity #ogilvy #david ogilvy #advertising

[timclymer]

The 21st Century and Adolescent Suicide

One of the more serious situations, which plague the fragile fabric of our interaction society, is adolescent suicide. A diminishing community involvement in a child’s life, and the confidence in relations with peers and adults, adds to the anxiety of growth. As a society we have a propensity of single mindedness towards adolescent behavior patterns attributed to suicide. There are many reasons attributed to this growing trend of coping with their changing world but as we consider the problem, signs of such activity are subtle. As we look at the subtlety and significance of these signs involved with suicide it is difficult for the untrained eye and ear to ascertain. Those who are adept at making the decisions for intervention are parents, teachers, peers, and if visits are frequent, the family physician. A question that is most often asked is what brings a child to the point of committing suicide? One of the factors that heighten the willingness to engage in such an endeavor is stress and lack of clear direction modeled by adults and those in authority or influence in our society. Adolescents raised in prior eras were given a direction for their future with examples that commensurate with the rhetorical patterns of the period albeit not all good there was a tangible certainty of the future. As we look at the models of behavior for children and adolescents in modern times, adults are preoccupied with being forever young engaging in immature and irresponsible behavior such as casual sexual behavior, leniency on teenage pregnancy, promoting promiscuous behavior in media, easy divorce as opposed to problem solving, suggestive clothing, lack respect for the importance of modeling behavior between other adults and their children; and self esteem that youth have engaged in their individual behaviors reflective of adult mannerisms that lack of justice morality, compassion and empathy. Attitudes amongst adolescents differ in the exposure and performance of interpersonal, social and workplace skills.

The contributing factors involved with suicidal tendencies may be the result nebulous expectations and uncertainty of future security, a series of stressful events, or health issues. Depressions as a result of health issues are closely monitored for the protection of the patient simplifying detection. The minority entities of these stimuli are more common in occurrence but underrated as a cause and effect factor in suicidal tendencies. These include the loss of a boyfriend or girlfriend, a parent through divorce, the death of a loved one, a sudden and unexplained move from familiar surroundings of friends and a familiar neighborhood. The public, family or friends, failure at school, and interactions with the law can attribute some psychological causes to humiliation. These events, albeit common, do not always result in suicide but the addition of depression, alcohol, and or drug abuse to the equation of suicidal tendencies renders the situation volatile producing feelings of hopelessness, depression and helplessness. Alcohol is extremely underrated as a precursor of suicide. Eighty percent of individuals who attempt suicide engage in alcohol before their attempts. The effect alcohol has on the body especially in over indulgence, cause regrets and anxiety when the alcohol is no longer available.

Individuals with depression combined with anxiety, a form psychosis or beliefs denied are at higher risk. The advent of the gang situation is a result of this form of psychosis. Adolescents in the inner city have adopted a new form of acceptance from society, which in itself is a form of suicide. Young gang members have been disillusioned about the world in which they live and their disadvantages. More than not the role models enterprise of alcoholism, abuse, single parent families, little or no support for the school attendance, and lack of life skills modeling. There was a time that it was not good for someone in the “hood” to posses any qualities of manners and education only being accused of being white. The parental modeling profiles are never standard in these situations but the “alternative family” or “homies” has had enough of an influence to license an alternative life style for many of the inner city discrimination. While this tends to be a predominately male endeavor the females often are the innocent victims remaining to demeaning behavior, pregnancies, a total lack of self-esteem, often being sexually and physically abused. This backlash is a type of suicidal behavior pattern of inner city adolescents. The music in itself is begging for help while reflecting their newfound values. Those that maintain these delusions of a greener pastures are at a higher risk of suicide than individuals who do not have this stigma attached to their psychological profile. Because of age, experience, and depth in processing, understanding patterns that lead to disharmony in life does not allow them to produce alternative decision making processes. Anticipation, inhibitions, and consequences of suicidal interjections lessen with the use of drugs and alcohol that is a donor to disaster as it slowly engages its victims down a difficult path difficult to reverse.

Treatment, Prevention, and Diagnosis The adolescent youth usually confide in their friends. The IT boom has made the amount of information a 13 year old is disclosed is disquieting. As we have mentioned before the signs that an overt attempt at suicide is imminent has many windows; parting with favorite possessions, social withdrawal, falling grades, over chasing for acceptance are some of the minority signs. Statements such as “What is my purpose here, I do not count”, “I wish I was dead”, and “Nobody loves me anymore” are clear signs of expression. To minimalise a suicide attempt by teachers, parents, and other caretakers may send a signal of not caring to the adolescent and will try the act again. This is a direct correlation with the quality of time we spend with our adolescents. There is a great difference between the intent to commit suicide and the actual completion of the act. An example would be an adolescent who takes harmless spills with the intent to commit the act should be considered at risk. There are a number of factors involved in the seriousness of the attempt to commit suicide whether it is planned or spontaneous whether or not there was a cover up attempt to hide the fact that these issues were indeed on the fore front of the individuals mind. The type of methods used and its success rate are other determining factors in the diagnosis. There are three types of suicidal events there is of course the completed sued were a death has occurred, the suicide attempt is where a life was intended upon being taken but was not successful. Suicidal gestures are an attempt to commit suicide that was not intended.

Communicating to our youth about the ease and consequences of falling into a behavior pattern of suicide is a must. A trained peer group is just as capable of stopping a suicide as an intervention center. Educating children to use proper language, not keeping secrets from those that can help and recognizing the signs are an important. Identifying suicidal thinking can lead to interventions. All types of suicide attempts are to be taken seriously no matter how minute the problem may seem.

Data Approximately two thirds of those who attempt suicide attempt to do it again with success. The signs are as simple as self-inflatable wounds that may appear to be play scratches or taking more than the prescribed amount of pills. Most suicides are in the category of attempted and gesture. Suicides that result in death are about ten percent. Although most suicidal behavior does not result in death, 10% of people who try to kill themselves using a potentially fatal means do die from their actions. Suicidal tendencies result from a combination of factors represented to the victim. One of the major battles is depression, mania, and anxiety. Depression is involved in over fifty percent of those attempted. Medical disorders associated with depression may lead to suicidal tendencies. Some of the known disorders that cause suicide are delusional disorders, auditory hallucinations or that voice in the head that says. “This is the thing we need to do”, personality disorders, antisocial behaviors, or those with a violent history.

Methods vary and are usually cultural and socially oriented. The availability of useful tools vary in each situation and is dependent upon factors such as spontaneity. A gunshot wound is more often than not fatal an overdose has a way out and is usually done when a rescue is imminent but the intent may just have been as serious. Completed suicides are generally procured by gunshot in the United States. Males tend to prefer this method or attempt while women tend to be less violent and pursue the direction of over dose or poisoning or drowning.

Conclusion We often assume that treatment is the final stage in the treatment plan. “I am in treatment”, “I am better now”. This is the time to guard someone involved in an attempt to take their life They will tell you that they are feeling better than they actually do. This is a time some find that they have a renewal of energy to complete the task or it is a way of releasing anxiety. Nearly sixty percent of all completed suicides are committed with a firearm. Keep them away from adolescents at all time. There should not be an instance where they need one. The gun does not excite the behavior does not feed into the plan. And while having a firearm does not in itself promote suicidal behavior, knowing that one is accessible may help a troubled teen formulate his or her suicidal plans. Our world is an astonishing place on which to live. As adults our mission should be in the passing of wealth and goodness of the planet to our children as opposed to selfishly raping the planet and forget our duty to protect our children’s interests in lieu of a percentage.

Source by Frank M Smith

from Home Solutions Forev https://homesolutionsforev.com/the-21st-century-and-adolescent-suicide/ via Home Solutions on WordPress from Home Solutions FOREV https://homesolutionsforev.tumblr.com/post/186199481480 via Tim Clymer on Wordpress

#Home Solutions FOREV

[homesolutionsforev]

The 21st Century and Adolescent Suicide

One of the more serious situations, which plague the fragile fabric of our interaction society, is adolescent suicide. A diminishing community involvement in a child's life, and the confidence in relations with peers and adults, adds to the anxiety of growth. As a society we have a propensity of single mindedness towards adolescent behavior patterns attributed to suicide. There are many reasons attributed to this growing trend of coping with their changing world but as we consider the problem, signs of such activity are subtle. As we look at the subtlety and significance of these signs involved with suicide it is difficult for the untrained eye and ear to ascertain. Those who are adept at making the decisions for intervention are parents, teachers, peers, and if visits are frequent, the family physician. A question that is most often asked is what brings a child to the point of committing suicide? One of the factors that heighten the willingness to engage in such an endeavor is stress and lack of clear direction modeled by adults and those in authority or influence in our society. Adolescents raised in prior eras were given a direction for their future with examples that commensurate with the rhetorical patterns of the period albeit not all good there was a tangible certainty of the future. As we look at the models of behavior for children and adolescents in modern times, adults are preoccupied with being forever young engaging in immature and irresponsible behavior such as casual sexual behavior, leniency on teenage pregnancy, promoting promiscuous behavior in media, easy divorce as opposed to problem solving, suggestive clothing, lack respect for the importance of modeling behavior between other adults and their children; and self esteem that youth have engaged in their individual behaviors reflective of adult mannerisms that lack of justice morality, compassion and empathy. Attitudes amongst adolescents differ in the exposure and performance of interpersonal, social and workplace skills.

The contributing factors involved with suicidal tendencies may be the result nebulous expectations and uncertainty of future security, a series of stressful events, or health issues. Depressions as a result of health issues are closely monitored for the protection of the patient simplifying detection. The minority entities of these stimuli are more common in occurrence but underrated as a cause and effect factor in suicidal tendencies. These include the loss of a boyfriend or girlfriend, a parent through divorce, the death of a loved one, a sudden and unexplained move from familiar surroundings of friends and a familiar neighborhood. The public, family or friends, failure at school, and interactions with the law can attribute some psychological causes to humiliation. These events, albeit common, do not always result in suicide but the addition of depression, alcohol, and or drug abuse to the equation of suicidal tendencies renders the situation volatile producing feelings of hopelessness, depression and helplessness. Alcohol is extremely underrated as a precursor of suicide. Eighty percent of individuals who attempt suicide engage in alcohol before their attempts. The effect alcohol has on the body especially in over indulgence, cause regrets and anxiety when the alcohol is no longer available.

Individuals with depression combined with anxiety, a form psychosis or beliefs denied are at higher risk. The advent of the gang situation is a result of this form of psychosis. Adolescents in the inner city have adopted a new form of acceptance from society, which in itself is a form of suicide. Young gang members have been disillusioned about the world in which they live and their disadvantages. More than not the role models enterprise of alcoholism, abuse, single parent families, little or no support for the school attendance, and lack of life skills modeling. There was a time that it was not good for someone in the "hood" to posses any qualities of manners and education only being accused of being white. The parental modeling profiles are never standard in these situations but the "alternative family" or "homies" has had enough of an influence to license an alternative life style for many of the inner city discrimination. While this tends to be a predominately male endeavor the females often are the innocent victims remaining to demeaning behavior, pregnancies, a total lack of self-esteem, often being sexually and physically abused. This backlash is a type of suicidal behavior pattern of inner city adolescents. The music in itself is begging for help while reflecting their newfound values. Those that maintain these delusions of a greener pastures are at a higher risk of suicide than individuals who do not have this stigma attached to their psychological profile. Because of age, experience, and depth in processing, understanding patterns that lead to disharmony in life does not allow them to produce alternative decision making processes. Anticipation, inhibitions, and consequences of suicidal interjections lessen with the use of drugs and alcohol that is a donor to disaster as it slowly engages its victims down a difficult path difficult to reverse.

Treatment, Prevention, and Diagnosis The adolescent youth usually confide in their friends. The IT boom has made the amount of information a 13 year old is disclosed is disquieting. As we have mentioned before the signs that an overt attempt at suicide is imminent has many windows; parting with favorite possessions, social withdrawal, falling grades, over chasing for acceptance are some of the minority signs. Statements such as "What is my purpose here, I do not count", "I wish I was dead", and "Nobody loves me anymore" are clear signs of expression. To minimalise a suicide attempt by teachers, parents, and other caretakers may send a signal of not caring to the adolescent and will try the act again. This is a direct correlation with the quality of time we spend with our adolescents. There is a great difference between the intent to commit suicide and the actual completion of the act. An example would be an adolescent who takes harmless spills with the intent to commit the act should be considered at risk. There are a number of factors involved in the seriousness of the attempt to commit suicide whether it is planned or spontaneous whether or not there was a cover up attempt to hide the fact that these issues were indeed on the fore front of the individuals mind. The type of methods used and its success rate are other determining factors in the diagnosis. There are three types of suicidal events there is of course the completed sued were a death has occurred, the suicide attempt is where a life was intended upon being taken but was not successful. Suicidal gestures are an attempt to commit suicide that was not intended.

Communicating to our youth about the ease and consequences of falling into a behavior pattern of suicide is a must. A trained peer group is just as capable of stopping a suicide as an intervention center. Educating children to use proper language, not keeping secrets from those that can help and recognizing the signs are an important. Identifying suicidal thinking can lead to interventions. All types of suicide attempts are to be taken seriously no matter how minute the problem may seem.

Data Approximately two thirds of those who attempt suicide attempt to do it again with success. The signs are as simple as self-inflatable wounds that may appear to be play scratches or taking more than the prescribed amount of pills. Most suicides are in the category of attempted and gesture. Suicides that result in death are about ten percent. Although most suicidal behavior does not result in death, 10% of people who try to kill themselves using a potentially fatal means do die from their actions. Suicidal tendencies result from a combination of factors represented to the victim. One of the major battles is depression, mania, and anxiety. Depression is involved in over fifty percent of those attempted. Medical disorders associated with depression may lead to suicidal tendencies. Some of the known disorders that cause suicide are delusional disorders, auditory hallucinations or that voice in the head that says. "This is the thing we need to do", personality disorders, antisocial behaviors, or those with a violent history.

Methods vary and are usually cultural and socially oriented. The availability of useful tools vary in each situation and is dependent upon factors such as spontaneity. A gunshot wound is more often than not fatal an overdose has a way out and is usually done when a rescue is imminent but the intent may just have been as serious. Completed suicides are generally procured by gunshot in the United States. Males tend to prefer this method or attempt while women tend to be less violent and pursue the direction of over dose or poisoning or drowning.

Conclusion We often assume that treatment is the final stage in the treatment plan. "I am in treatment", "I am better now". This is the time to guard someone involved in an attempt to take their life They will tell you that they are feeling better than they actually do. This is a time some find that they have a renewal of energy to complete the task or it is a way of releasing anxiety. Nearly sixty percent of all completed suicides are committed with a firearm. Keep them away from adolescents at all time. There should not be an instance where they need one. The gun does not excite the behavior does not feed into the plan. And while having a firearm does not in itself promote suicidal behavior, knowing that one is accessible may help a troubled teen formulate his or her suicidal plans. Our world is an astonishing place on which to live. As adults our mission should be in the passing of wealth and goodness of the planet to our children as opposed to selfishly raping the planet and forget our duty to protect our children's interests in lieu of a percentage.

Source by Frank M Smith

from Home Solutions Forev https://homesolutionsforev.com/the-21st-century-and-adolescent-suicide/ via Home Solutions on WordPress

#Home Solutions Forev

[bulbwalrus6-blog]

Why should the government interfere with the very personal process of gender identity?

Transgender historian Susan Stryker wrote in her 2017 book Transgender History that the contemporary meaning of the word "transgender" is still under construction. It has been redefined often since the word was first created in the mid-20th century, but even then the very concept of moving from one gender was already very old. While Roger Severino, appointed by President Trump as the director of the office for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, would call this concept "radical gender ideology," the history books and Chicago activist groups call it reality.

Severino's memo, leaked earlier this week by the New York Times, argues that gender should be rigidly defined under Title IX "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science," as a male/female binary that is unchangeable and determined by genitalia perceived at birth. HHS is encouraging the other government departments that also enforce Title IX—including Education, Justice, and Labor—to follow suit. Under this rule, genetic testing is the only option to determine a person's gender. The memo doesn't just define a gender binary as a rule, it also invalidates gender confirmation surgeries, ignoring any possibility of a person transitioning from the gender assigned at birth. The memo all but explicitly states that all people must identify as either male or female, whichever they were registered at birth. Many trans people feel this strict binary erases their identities.

The crux of Severino's argument is that X and Y chromosomes determine gender, a theory that has been disproven. And even before genetics were discovered, no one talked about regulating a person's gender expression based on anatomy. Before the 20th century, there was no standardized system of birth certificates that assigned gender. Our contemporary understanding of gender is relatively new, only dating back to physician Magnus Hirschfeld's work in early 20th-century Germany. In his studies of gender and sexuality, Hirschfeld coined the terms "transsexual" and "transvestite," both of which have changed in definition and connotation over the past century. As time passes, the terms we use to define gender change along with the way we perceive gender roles. Past cultures have used systems that have organized people into social genders through a variety of methods different from our contemporary binary, often by the work people did rather than by the bodies that did the work. Some gender systems were determined by social, legal, or religious obligations. Some people changed gender roles based on dreams or visions. Many indigenous American communities have three or more genders. Ancient rabbinical texts explain seven distinct genders once recognized in Judaism.

Gender varies by time, place, and culture, not just science. Yet another factor influencing gender identity for many people is genitalia deemed "ambiguous" at birth. With so many contingent factors, gender is difficult to explain, making it an easy target for bigotry. The memo's leak coincidentally occurred during the week of Intersex Awareness Day and protests in Chicago and New York, which aim to educate people about the often overlooked group of intersex people in the queer community.

The existence of intersex people is stark proof that bodies exist outside a gender binary. One in 100 people is intersex, possessing some combination of male and female genitalia, internal sex organs, and chromosomes. Oftentimes intersex people have combinations of chromosomes that aren't male or female, such as XXY or XO. When intersex babies are born and doctors are unable to determine a male or female gender, they often assign one to the infant. Surgeries that are considered "cosmetic," such as clitoral reductions, vaginoplasties, and the removal of functional testes are forced upon the child, and may not match their identity. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago is still performing these operations, which the United Nations has deemed a form of torture.

The Chicago-based Intersex Justice Project launched a campaign outside Lurie last year on Intersex Awareness Day to end intersex surgery, and will be leading another protest on this year's Awareness Day on Friday, October 26, this time organizing a train occupation. Pidgeon Pagonis, cofounder of the project, summarizes their demands: "We want a public apology for the irreversible harmful surgeries that have been done on intersex people without their consent." The group also wants sensitivity training for Lurie staff and clinicians who handle intersex children, taught by intersex individuals. They demand reparations, Pagonis says, "including free medical care that doesn't position intersex variations as problems to be fixed." This would include hormones and psychological support for intersex people and their parents.

Friday's protest, which begins at 1:15 PM at a location that is only disclosed privately on Intersex Justice Project's Instagram account, is inspired by the first (and last known) intersex protest in 1996 outside the American Academy of Pediatrics' annual convention. The idea for the train action, Pagonis says, was inspired by the Black Trans and Gender Non-Conforming Collective and #NoCopAcademy who crowded CTA Red Line cars to commemorate Rekia Boyd and chant against Mayor Emanuel's proposed cop academy, respectively. IJP's protesting arguments against "corrective" surgeries will conflict with the administration's historically and scientifically inaccurate definition of gender.

Sex defined by a male/female binary is too rigid to accurately label the many ways we express gender socially. Bodies are too varied in their chromosomal makeup and genital formation to accurately conform to the social categories a person lives in. They can't be defined on such a narrow binary. Many people—myself included—have taken years to come to an awareness of their own gender identities. Why does the government need to intercede in that already complicated, and very personal, process?

So why does the Trump administration insist on defining gender as a binary? Comments in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, and even from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow speculate that it's a simple tactic to score political points before the upcoming midterm elections. Maddow framed her coverage of the story by recalling President's Bush's homophobic remarks before the 2004 election to encourage conservative voters to come out and vote against marriage equality. This is not a scientific debate on whether or not 1.4 million transgender people exist in the U.S.; this is political, using real people as pawns to gain power.

Should other government departments follow HHS, the results would be bigger than the ongoing bathroom debate. On Wednesday, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that businesses can discriminate against their own workers based on their gender identity, suddenly reversing the position of 2008's Schroer v. Billington. People may begin to face discrimination at work and while jobs-hunting. Social services and health care (including gender-affirming surgeries, hormone replacements, and other necessary care for transgender patients) could be denied. Military bans lifted during the Obama era could go back into effect. Identification documents such as drivers licenses, birth certificates, and passports might be impossible to change. Medical records would be inaccurate. The memo's broad support from the government, says Pagonis, "will only serve to give surgeons who ignore the United Nations more fuel for the already existing intersex-phobic fire. A parent of an intersex kid who (rightfully) decides they don't want to allow surgeons to 'fix' their child could be met with, 'Sorry, sex reassignment surgery is the law now.'"

Pagonis cites the colonialists who attempted to decimate the two-spirit people of indigenous communities, the medical-sanctioned genital mutilation of infants since the 1950s, and the U.S. government's refusal to acknowledge the existence of AIDS in the early 80s, even as it plagued and ravaged the queer community. "Yet we fought back," Pagonis says. That might be where the Trump administration's political trick for votes goes wrong: transgender and gender-nonconforming people have historically turned out to fight and vote more so than their cisgender counterparts, and in disproportionately high numbers for Democrats.

Following the memo's leak, activist group Voices4 and Lambda Legal gathered hundreds of people in Washington Square Park in New York City, the same park where activists Marsha P. Johnson and Silvia Rivera founded the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries in 1970. They shouted "Hell no to the memo!" Hundreds more protesters gathered outside the White House.

The Trump administration's definition of gender becoming policy would undo legal work to protect trans people dating back to the Minnesota state legislature's ban on discrimination against transgender people in 1993, all the way through President Obama's protection of trans identities on a variety of federal fronts. But this unprecedented setback on one vulnerable community's civil rights might not take shape should the election favor a democratic senate. With 33 Senate seats on the upcoming ballot, a shift in power might see HHS's Roger Severino out of a job.

Source: https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2018/10/26/why-should-the-government-interfere-with-the-very-personal-process-of-gender-identity