Feb 21 2013
A Final Word: On T-Shirts and Teapot Tempests
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “A Final Word: On T-Shirts and Teapot Tempests”.
141 Responses to “A Final Word: On T-Shirts and Teapot Tempests”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This whole thing has gotten really strange, in my view. Gender equality is a most important value and sexism is bad and sexual harassment and aggression are unacceptable. The attacks on R. Watson and the ugliness that some people have shown in the whole discussion were quite surprising to me and disturbing to a lot of folks no doubt. But the backlash washed over Dr. Hall and others in a really weird way too. It seems like the bad folks brought out the worst in some of the good folks.
I have been to a lot of conferences, BTW — medical and public health type stuff — by a lot I mean more than a hundred, and I have never observed the kind of sexual aggression, sexist and boorish behavior that people are complaining about regarding TAM and other skeptical/atheist type events. It surprises me to hear about this.
Thank you for your explanation of the sequence of the events that led up to, and what occurred, during, the 2012 TAM Meeting, Dr. Hall. I *confess* I have been following the bloggers who have written about those events, because I was aware of the distress experienced by the TAM attendees.
Good on you Dr. Hall, for your efforts to end this constant cyberspace war of words. Have a great time with your colleagues at the 2013 Tam Meeting.
Dr. Hall, I am a fan of yours, but I do hope you and your fans read Wil at skepchick’s final post on this issue and take some of what he says to heart. I don’t particularly care for his tone and think some of what he has said was a strawman argument, but he does make some decent points too, in particular about the importance of using the accurate and up-to-date terminology you can. You would expect a post on SBM to contain accurate and up to date information if it was about cancer treatments and gender studies deserves the same treatment.
My t-shirt this year will read…”Whatever Harriet Hall is, I want to be more like that.”
Thank for taking the time to give some background and your perspective.
“It surprises me to hear about this.”
That’s because this has mostly happened in the minds of a handful of people who then quickly realized they could take it all to the bank.
“I was aware of the distress experienced by the TAM attendees.”
What distress? I have been following this soap opera for the last 18 months and any distress experienced was purely self-induced.
But I am glad that Harriet Hall put her side out there now. I am sure the usual suspects will be here any minute now and try to accuse of her one thing or the other.
Here are some reactions, that I shall try to interpret in the most charitable way possible. Will it be like pantomime or will it be civil?.
I wish to echo Barbara Drescher’s sentiment that no further explanation was required. Harriet, you are far too kind; I commend your efforts to build bridges with the “feminists”.
I firmly believe that some ideologues are a lost cause.
It’s hard to believe that once rational people could become so thoroughly indoctrinated and unreasonable. I still agree with Justicar’s assessment of the message on the T-shirt.. The “feminist” cult is offended; there’s nothing you or anyone can do. (But hats off for trying).
As I mentioned in my post the other day, here, Harriet’s reasons for wearing that T-Shirt had nothing to do with the silly reasons Rebecca and her friends said. Rebecca even mentioned Harriet not getting a gig at Skepchick, or something, as a possible reason! As if writing for Skepchick would be a career goal for someone like Harriet!!! She’s above that.
She really is that clueless. It was a protest, something that Rebecca and her supporters often support – except of course, if it happens to be a protest against them and their behaviour.
RE the evidence against “queer” being offensive:
Evidence of one kind: GLAAD is a fairly conservative organization as these things go. They recently have been loudly offended by “fag,” for instance, though it’s a word that some gay men happily claim. This is what you get when you search for “queer” on the GLAAD site: http://www.glaad.org/search/site/queer No articles frothing about “queer” being derogatory; lots of celebration. So that’s evidence of one kind.
Evidence of another kind is found in a Google Books Ngram http://bit.ly/YeP5QA for “queer” showing that its use started picking up considerably in 1989.
Evidence that piggybacks on the Google Books Ngram is found in the evolution of language that english-speaking North American sexual minorities commonly use to speak about themselves (in chronological order, starting I guess in about the mid-’60s?)
Gay (used to refer to both gay men and lesbians, much as “mankind” was used to refer to both men and women)
Gay and lesbian (gay men and lesbians)
LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual)
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual)
LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer)
LGBTTQQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirited, queer, questioning)
and now:
QUILTBAG (queer, undecided, intersex, lesbian, trans*, bisexual, asexual, gay)
Google QUILTBAG. You’ll find lots of it. It’s used most by the young’uns and I’d say most people don’t know it, but the point is that it includes “queer.” The last three acronyms have all included “queer,” which started to be included in the common lexicon in the late 80s during the sex wars (lesbian feminists who were against pornography, especially violent pornography, vs sex-positive, pro-prostitution culture producers). That was twenty-five years ago. If you’re in the QUILTBAG and you’re 50 or younger, the positive connotation is the default. (If you’re 50 or older, you’ve had 25 years to get used to the word though psychology being what it is you may never have.) That’s an awful lot of us.
In the ’50s, “queer” meant gay and was derogatory. It might be roughly the equivalent of “faggot” today, depending on context. But that was the ’50s.
Today it is an inclusive term that may simply mean “sexual minority” and refer to everybody in the QUILTBAG. On the other hand, it might be what straight fetishists call themselves, or people into BDSM, to indicate that their sexuality isn’t straight even though they might prefer opposite-sex partners. People proudly call themselves “genderqueer” to indicate that they don’t identify with one sex or another, or that they prefer their sexual partners to be sexually ambiguous — femmy men and butch women being equally attractive. I haven’t heard of anyone being threatened by being called “queer” in middle school lately, though I believe that “faggot,” “pussy” and “homo” are still used frequently for that purpose.
Harriet Hall, you are the one asserting that most people in the LGBT community consider the word “queer” to be offensive today, so the burden of proof is on you. What is *your* evidence? If the politics of language among sexual minorities isn’t your thing, fine, we get it. You and most people. But if it’s not your thing, you’re allowed to graciously allow yourself to be swayed by the evidence of people whose thing it *is.*
@superdave
” in particular about the importance of using the accurate and up-to-date terminology you can.”
G-D-it, will this never end? I, for one, have zero, zip, nada interest in keeping up to date on the terminology for every sexuality/lifestyle/gender/political stance/living arrangement/eating habit that each and every subset of humanity chooses to identify itself with (pardon the dangling participle). It isn’t that I am callous. I wish you and everyone else of all the best that life has to offer. Beyond that, I just don’t care. I won’t call you something that I believe will offend or hurt you. But I won’t make it my life’s work to learn all of the labels du jour. If I err and use a word that is offensive to you, please calmly let me know. I won’t use it again. Unless you’re a real a-hole about it and then I might just because I have the a-hole gene too.
If you are that prickly about forms of address, hang a little placard around your neck that clearly announces your proclivities and the labels that you are comfy with – and maybe the ones that are strictly verbotten. I’ll respect it.
Mine might read:
Straight white guy. Call me anything you want but don’t call me Jimmy. Only my grandmother gets to call me Jimmy. And she’s dead.
See? Easy. I’m having mine made today. You can see me wearing it at TAM. If I go to TAM. Which I won’t because I hate Las Vegas with a passion. But who knows, may someday they’ll move it to Jackson Hole or San Francisco.
Is there a word for people like me who hate Las Vegas? We should form a movement. I’ll put it on my placard.
On ‘queer’, which I can speak of very confidently because I’m not only gay myself, but I have a certificate in LGBT Studies from UW-Madison: It is indeed used in a modern context in many ways that are positive or at least neutral, such as in ‘queer theory’ or shows like Queer Eye and Queer as Folk. We routinely said it in class and it was fine. But we were also college kids on the same page.
However after leaving college and meeting more people in the community, I have indeed met several LGBT people who object to the term, because they still see it as a slur. Some of these people lived through times when it was used exclusively to harass and dehumanize people, and they still feel the same lingering hurt when they hear it as I do when I hear someone use the word ‘faggot’. Generally these people have been older, working class and/or rural. I hesitate to accuse your detractors of ‘ageism’ and ‘classism’ in attacking your assertion that queer might be offensive and dismissing the feelings of those who find it so, but I could probably make that argument were I so inclined (I don’t tend to like flinging around ‘isms’ though, unlike so many people on-line…)
No matter how many people are offended or not by the term, there is an absolutely ABSURD double standard on display when people insist that a word isn’t offensive; because many of those same people will FLIP OUT if you use a word THEY happen to disapprove of. The very last people who should be lecturing anybody on terminology are the ‘social justice’ warriors on-line who routinely make a mountain out of a mole hill whenever someone uses a ‘gendered slur’ such as ‘bitch’ – which by the way, is also a word that has been turned around by gay men and, along with ‘cunt’, is routinely tossed around, not as a slur, but as a de-fanged term of endearment.
In fact just this past weekend I attended a bus trip to Chicago with a large group of gay men. I heard ‘cunt’ and ‘bitch’ half a dozen times within the first hour. Nobody meant it as a slur against women, or a negative comment toward anybody at all for that matter. I had to laugh and think to myself “oh if only those silly word police bloggers, who pay lip service to gay issues but don’t seem to understand them, were here right now…”
Point is, we have a group of people who insist others must walk around on eggshells so as not to defend their delicate sensibilities, but whenever anyone else claims something is offensive these same people say “too bad”. It’s absurd. There is no logical consistency whatsoever in any of it. We are supposed to tolerate drama bloggers using their blogs to insult and belittle whomever they choose, but any push back is characterized as “harassment” or “bullying”. We’re supposed to care deeply that someone was asked out for coffee in an elevator, and if you try to compare it to more serious persecution of women elsewhere, we are somehow making some huge logical and moral error; yet when these same bloggers and their readers are asked to consider issues that affect men (for example prison rape), many of them retort with sarcasm and dismissal and say facetious things like “what about teh menz?”. We’re supposed to tolerate libel and accusations against DJ Grothe and his conferences, and yet a t-shirt (which was OBVIOUSLY a reaction to these character attacks) brings someone to tears and we’re all supposed to feel terrible? These bloggers and their readers routinely write incredibly offensive things, and insist nobody has the right to not be offended… until THEY are offended. Then stop the presses, it’s a “social justice” issue! And if you don’t side with them, YOU HATE WOMEN! AND PUPPIES! Probably.
No. Sorry, I don’t think so.
My last post on these topics, after perusing some of Will’s posts as well (mostly because I meant to comment about it before, but forgot).
There are indeed straw men and unncessary and, IMO, wrong reading into what he thinks Dr. Hall said. There are also very valid points. The only two things I really wish to address are that of his assertion of the need to reject the binary classification system (male/female) and his argument that there are no innate sex based differences (which is an admittedly complex and unsettled field of study, one which he finally conceded Dr. Hall was aware of the whole time).
In the first, I find it funny that someone who comments that Dr. Hall has an “undergrad” level of understanding and should thus not be writing about sex/gender is commenting on the medical utility of a binary classification system for sex as someone who is not (to the best of my knowledge) a physician or medical researcher. I don’t have the time or desire to write a novel here, but the fact is that despite Will’s protestations, they are useful constructs. In fact they are very useful constructs, especially for those of us like myself and Dr. Hall who recognize the limits of said constructs. Every model has a failing point and cannot possibly accurately describe everything. He seems to be arguing that because the binary model for sex fails in a non-insignificant but still quite small subset of the population it should be entirely rejected. Sorry, but that is absolutely wrong. The utility of using it for establishing prior probability and thus affecting posterior outcomes in many cases, as well as altering positive and negative predictive value of tests is simply genuinely too useful to discard because it fails in the cases he is specifically concerned about and focused on. The answer is not to discard it but to recognize the limitations and act accordingly at those times.
The second part is indeed far from settled but the likelihood is that yes, indeed, there are innate differences between the sexes. An old professor of mine, Larry Cahill discusses much of this. I attended a lecture he gave a couple of years ago on the topic and he went into how it is difficult to even do the kind of research he has done because of exactly the sort of backlash we see from Will. There is this assumption that “different = not-equal” when all Cahill is doing is demonstrating “different.” And it has profound implications. We do research on specific model animals. In his field, neuroscience, the predominate is the Sprague-Dawley rat. The problem is that they only use male animals. Why? Because the female animals are too complex – they have additional hormonal cycles and other anatomical and physiological differences that make for confounders that render the subsequent data analysis extremely complex. Plus, there was the assumption that there is no meaningful difference! His research led him to see that in fact, there were meaningful differences! Differences that indeed could translate to differing outcomes in medical treatments!
Now, of course this is – as Dr. Novella has pointed out – average differences which do not reflect individual differences. But since science itself and especially the practice and application of medicine (including clinical trials) is based on averages and statistics that we translate as best we can to individuals that is meaningful.
So really, the knife cuts both ways. And everyone here, myself included, have not be entirely correct and even sometimes entirely wrong. But I do see Dr. Hall more willing to make concessions than Will or others involved.
Anyways, that’s my two cents for anyone who is interested. Back to my grind.
Ah, bravo. More concisely stated as “let’s ignore sexism, and it will go away”.
That sounds totally plausible and not a straw man in any way whatsoever.
That is an intentionally absurd and useless example. This situation, if we took the back of the shirt as an example, is more like wearing a shirt that says “I am not a cat lover” to a pet show. Or wearing a shirt that says “I am not a Republican – I’m a human”. The reaction for either would be the same – people would wonder why the shirt was immature and contrarian, and what the point of it was.
People expressed their very real concerns that they did not feel safe and welcome, and your response was to loudly advertise “Well, I feel just fine, so there. Also, I’m not one of you people.” It was irrelevant and and obnoxious, and your inability to recognize this is saddening.
Dr. Hall:
That does not mean it is used by some websites and organizations. “Quantitative” evidence usually means a well conducted scientific survey on how the word is perceived by the entire target demographic.
Since I have said the same thing multiple times to someone, I doubt that they will ever understand what that means. So that I am finished with it. And if you wish for me to conform to your specific vocabulary and use something that I grew up thinking was offensive, be prepared to tell me to expect you to know all about eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
Myself, with bad grammar: be prepared for me to expect you to know all about eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
(and perhaps guess the pun)
@ Michael K: People who attended the 2012 TAM Meeting were upset and discussed the Meeting on David Gorski’s “other blog”.
@ Allison Cummings: Still got yourself in a huff about Dr. Hall’s statement about the use of “Queer”? Well I’m upset that Rebecca’s blogging buddy Will used that as an excuse to launch another personal attack on Dr. Hall. I’m also upset about the pejorative labeling of older male and older females as “Silverbacks” and the blatant ageist attacks visited on Harriet Hall and others.
Take a hint Allison…this blog is where the grown-ups post, and where some of the older gay people who posted on the other thread stated that they found the word “Queer” offensive.
BTW, I don’t like to be called a “Silverback” and “Cissexual” just because your language police think it is proper and acceptable.
“People who attended the 2012 TAM Meeting were upset and discussed the Meeting on David Gorski’s “other blog”.”
Who are these people and do you have a link to that discussion on the “other blog”? I tried to google, but there is a remarkable amount of David Gorskis out there.
Wow. This is not a good way to start a post. Especially not if you want people to give you a charitable reading, in which case you might want to actually treat your critics charitably as well – or at least, not preemptively smear them.
Yes, you were free to make that statement. However, others were free to consider it nasty, and say so. You should not have the expectation that making such statements will be without consequences for the way people see you.
Then you weren’t really that sorry, were you?
That’s nonsense, as not wearing that shirt isn’t a burden at all. In fact, you had to go out of your way to create and wear it, so you’re nowhere near some slippery slope here.
Actually, I would expect that a lot of the support you were getting was from people who did not read it like you claim you intended it, but rather who did interpret it as a sneer directly aimed at Skepchick and others. Some people are probably just thanking you because they think that sneer was long overdue.
And besides, what is this? Argument from popularity? On a skeptic’s blog?
@lilady, I’m not in a huff, I’m not particularly following this, I didn’t read the comment thread on the earlier post, I certainly didn’t post on it. I think that Harriet Hall is naive, which is ok because all of us are naive about something. But I really don’t invest energy in getting into a huff about naive people.
I took Harriet Hall at her word when she said that nobody had offered quantitative evidence but that she would be open to it. I offered some. That’s it. Really. That’s it. I don’t care what people call themselves and up to a point I don’t care what other people call me if they aren’t being intentionally offensive. Labels are not what it’s about.
I agree that older gay people may be offended by the word “queer.” If you’d read my comment carefully you would have noted that. Based on history I gave the cutoff as age 50, but there is certainly overlap on either side.
For the avoidance of doubt, April, the ideologue I was alluding to is Rebecca Watson. I was trying to be polite. I guess there’s no point beating around the bush.
I think that one would have to be disconnected from reality to believe that Watson’s comment was “lucid, calm and sensible”.
For a while, I wondered if the response had been written by a troll posing as Watson; it was so very poor.
1. Hotels have laundry facilities these days.
2. Normal people think queer means gay. People outside your clique.
People in the cult have lost perspective. It’s clear that Watson feels deeply hurt by the tshirt. C’est la vie.
Trying to reason with Watson or Hensley is like an exercise in futility. This is all so silly and farcical, they are lost causes.
If they continue to bully and intimidate women, I won’t hesitate to criticise them; I won’t make concessions for wounded feelings.
I was tempted to start quibbling with Alison Cummins about continuing the quibbling, but realized it was well within my power to discontinue the quibbling. I’m reminded of a slogan my wife picked up from the nonprofit world, “you don’t have to accept an invitation to a fight.” I kinda think the best thing we can do in the spirit of Dr. Hall’s post is let the nitpicking die.
Hey, did anyone read the article on sciencedaily.com today about use of a magnetic bracelet-like device for acid reflux? Of course, it turned out to have nothing to do with an actual around-the-wrist bracelet, or magnets in the woo-medicine sense, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets cited by someone who hasn’t actually read it as “evidence” of the healing properties of magnets.
See here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130220184726.htm
@Alison Cummins
“RE the evidence against “queer” being offensive:
Evidence of one kind: GLAAD is a fairly conservative organization as these things go. They recently have been loudly offended by “fag,” for instance, though it’s a word that some gay men happily claim. This is what you get when you search for “queer” on the GLAAD site: http://www.glaad.org/search/site/queer No articles frothing about “queer” being derogatory; lots of celebration. So that’s evidence of one kind.”
I can’t believe the “most people find queer offensive is still going on, but since you brought up GLADD, this is easily found on their website (Media Reference Guide): “Queer Traditionally a pejorative term, queer has been appropriated by some LGBT people to describe themselves. However, it is not universally accepted even within the LGBT community and should be avoided unless quoting or describing someone who self-identifies that way.”
I’m sure someone will start picking apart “not universally accepted” and that it does not equal most, but carry on if you must.
@ Michael K: Some references were made about the 2012 TAM Meeting and the (unknown to me at the time), brouhaha with the run-up to the Meeting and during the Meeting. Dr. Gorski requested that posters not refer to rhubarb. Being an “inquisitive” person, I located a lot of the blogs and discussions on the JREF Forum.
@lilady
okay, now I am completely confused.
Let me try my original statement again: The people on the Watson side of the aisle, with all their belly-aching etc. caused their own distress by.. well, being themselves and continuing playing their victim card. That’s the group I was original referring to. I admit I am right now clueless if we’re agreeing or disagreeing because I not quite sure what you had read.
@ Alison Cummings: If you didn’t read the other thread before…why didn’t you read it since I posted at you?
Here it is….
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/
@ Michael K: I don’t recall the specific comments, but I do know that Dr. Gorski (unusual for him), interceded to end the discussions.
You don’t know where I stand Michael? Read my prior comments.
I don’t know anything about silverback, but cis is just the latin antonym to trans. Hence, cissexual = not transsexual. Nothing derogatory about that. Besides, it’s not like trans people asked to be called trans in the first place. But what would you prefer?
Well this became vicious fast, just like Dr. Hall predicted.
I’d like to thank Alison Cummings for responding to Dr. Hall’s request for evidence about queer being a term favored by sexual minorities, and for her polite response to lilady’s attack on her.
What was I originally gonna say before reading the comments? Oh yeah. I agree with most of the article. Some smart stuff in there. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to assume that when you wear a t-shirt you’re trying to make the biggest statement you can with it. It seems weird if you wear a t-shirt just to say something vague that only applies to yourself.
@lilady
Because I don’t care? If it’s anything like the current thread it sounds awfully tedious.
In *this post,* Harriet Hall said she was open to quantitative evidence about the connotations of a particular word. I responded to *this post* by providing some quantitative evidence and put a little history around it explaining that its use has changed over time. I pointed out that older gay folk were more likely to find that particular word offensive and that younger ones were less likely. I even proposed a cutoff age, and it’s even possible that someone out there has tested it.
The quantitative evidence I was able to supply is not definitive but it’s not nothing, either. Given the history, asserting “most” probably needs to be justified with quantitative evidence; it’s no longer self-evident.
Harriet Hall asked. I answered. She didn’t ask in her previous post, so I didn’t answer. Because I don’t care what she thinks. Which you don’t seem to get.
alephsquared: The crowd at Skepchick has been using “Silverback” to refer to older male skeptics, and I find it difficult to comprehend that they don’t know the meaning. A “Silverback” is a derogatory word for a brutish older man with power and money who preys on younger women.
How would I like to be referred to? How about “straight”…not a sciency-sounding neologism.
A trans woman who is attracted to men would also be considered “straight”. You may not find the cis/trans distinction helpful or necessary in your real life or internet interactions, but some do. Hence the terminology.
lilady — straight refers to sexual orientation, cissexual refers to gender identity. If the gender you were assigned at birth is the gender you identify as, you are cissexual. If not, transsexual.
Straight refers to a completely different phenomenon — there are straight transsexual people and gay cissexual people and all sorts of other combinations.
@chris and windriven
It’s not about knowing every piece of terminology in the world, it’s about knowing the terminology in the field you are talking about. But is even more important in the social sciences, where words don’t just represent abstract concepts but the identities of real people.
I should note that there is a distinction that I didn’t go into in my last post about the difference between (cis/trans)sexual and (cis/trans)gender. If people are interested, wikipedia is pretty good. But it seems like that might be making too many fine distinctions for people here.
@ Alison Cummings: Drive-by posting, eh? I’m going by what older gay stated on the other thread…and my “anecdotal” information is just as valid as yours.
I have many friends who are gay, and I can state (anecdotally), that there is no arbitrary “cut-off” age and age “overlap” of gay people who are comfortable (or take offense), at the use of the “Queer” word.
When I worked as a public health nurse-clinician I counseled HIV- and HIV+ gay people, teens to seventies, (I was a certified HIV Counsellor). “Anecdotally”, I never heard any of my patients refer to themselves or other gays as “Queers”.
People, can we all just disagree to agree here and be done with this? Misinformed and paranoid activists are making pseudoscientific arguments about plans, approved in last November’s elections, to fluoridate Portland’s drinking water. Persons of all genders and sexual persuasions will be affected!
Where’s Mark Crislip? He lives here, I know he must give a shit…
eigenvector!
Be your own shape and frequency!
@lilady,
Google Books Ngram is not anecdotal.
I don’t know a lot of people who call themselves queer either, but that wasn’t Harriet Hall’s question.
Be your own shape in a comic strip or in microbiology….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo
Dr Hall, I read your post and you say:
What this reads like to me is that you acted out of a concern in good faith that women may be discouraged from attending. Would you say this is a fair assumption? As you say it was a “positive personal statement in support of TAM”.
Given that you wore the shirt at the conference, it also seems reasonable to assume you had this concern going into the conference. Again, if I am missing something please let me know.
Fast forward to today however (and given the fact that hindsight is always 20-20), do you think it might provide perspective to examine how female attendance at TAM ultimately turned out? The reason I ask is because a) I made the assumption above that this seems to have been a concern for you and b) it is in fact data that is in the public domain.
On May 30, the figure that was provided for female registration percentage was 18% and was considered low compared to the 2011 final figure of 40%. Watson announced she would not attend on June 1. As it happens, the final figure for 2012 ended up being 31%. Source: http://io9.com/5938698/the-great-geek-sexism-debate
This is all simply to say that based on the data that is available, it does not appear that Watson deciding not to attend ultimately had a widespread adverse effect on the amount of women attendees. Of course there may have been specific cases of women who did cancel as a result. This is certainly a reasonable possibility that is consistent with the aggregate figure above.
lilady:
Do not conform into preconceived molds! Do not force others to conform. Think of them as individuals, not labels. And try to use common courtesy so you do not make others uncomfortable. There are limits.
[...] Hall has yet another post explaining why she’s right and everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. She says this is the last post on the subject, and thank god for that. This final post is about [...]
@ Chris:
(Sigh)…Thanks for the advice…I’ve be properly chastised//sarcasm.
Perhaps one of these would suffice in the shirt category.
Um, no. First of all, ‘cis’ is a Latin preposition (taking the accusative) that is positional. It means, in effect, “on this side,” just as ‘trans’ means “across.” Latin prepositions don’t have “antonyms.” Second of all, this isn’t Latin, it’s English. “Cissexual” is not just a barbarous neologism, it is a motivated one.
lilady, it is a reaction for others trying to dictate behavior, yet not realizing that they are offending others with their tone and emphasis on minor things.
I know that when I was young I kept being told that I was not “lady like”, and that I should stop liking math and to remember to wear gloves, always wear skirts at school (a rule my mother hated, especially during Midwest winters) and have proper undergarments. Now I get the same feeling in that I cannot be a proper feminist because I don’t know all the ins and outs, and that I must listen to this person over the other person (I don’t care for either, thank you very much).
Also, some actions have made me very uncomfortable. From the the Bordello theme of a TAM party to rape threats at daring to say something makes you uncomfortable.
It is great to be yourself, and be unique. But you need to think about others, which is why we have morals and civility.
Apologies. I did think about that for a minute before posting and went ahead with it anyway, but yes, antonym is not the correct term. I merely meant “has essentially the opposite meaning” (on this side, not across) not antonym.
Regardless: the point remains the same. Cis means not trans in this arena, cissexual means not transsexual. Of course it is motivated — motivated by the need for a word to describe something. (What the heck do you mean?)
Again, if you dislike the word so much: what word would you prefer?
I could always use grue but I’m trying *not* to use slurs.
Dr Hall – Thanks for this post.
Strangely enough, when I first saw your shirt, I took it to mean exactly what you apparently intended.
It will come as no surprise to anybody with more than one brain cell that Ophelia Benson is again yelping on about the “bad hygiene” of Harriet’s T-shirt.
I have a solution.
At the next TAM, everybody bring with them THREE T-shirts with their “I’m Not A Skepchick” messages on. One for each day. You could even bring a fourth one, just in case the flecks of spittle and foam from the mouths of the angry offended anti-TAM people contaminate the T-shirt that you are wearing!!! I’m sure Ophelia would approve, and there would be no concern over hygiene for their sensitive, upturned, little noses.
You know what? I’m on board with the whole cis/trans thing. I expected to think it was stupid, but I don’t. In situations where non-modal sex and gender is being discussed, it is a useful distinction that allows one to specify who is or is not transgendered without using a negative definition, or implied assumption. I can’t see it coming up in general conversation, but in some situations it would certainly be useful. I don’t think I’ll ever see the need to identify myself as cisgender (is that right?) in casual conversation, but when discussing the topic in abstract, or should I ever meet someone who identifies themselves as a transgendered person, it’s a good prefix to have.
aleph, thank you again. My vocabulary is expanded, and my thinking reoriented.
Yeah, I mean in some ways these sorts of things are easier to get the brain around for trans* people — these terms are necessary *all the time.*
I appreciate your willingness to be open to the ideas/terms.
It seems as though the normal English construction “non-transsexual” would do just fine. The motivation for the coinage here strikes me as being more political than one of using language to make distinctions. And to the extent that the motivation is that transsexuals should have equal status to non-transsexuals, that motivation is dandy. But it really strikes me as a word that has little to offer outside of a rhetorical club.
Unfortunately, I don’t have any transsexual friends to ask about the matter.
Fortunately, there is the internet, with real live trans* people who are willing to talk to you
“There! That’s done! Now back to science-based medicine.”
I know that I am done. I cannot think for even a moment you are having a conversation in good faith. That business that you said about the t-shirt is just a lie. You knew that it was meant as a dig at Skepchick. I can see that directly following the Tam experience you put out quite the campaign to clear up that misunderstanding. See that is snark. I am going to be direct. People voice their opinions in all sorts of ways. Some ways I agree with and some I do not. I personally make the determination on weather I agree, disagree, feel the message witty, feel it was in bad taste and so on. I was willing to read your post and simply make a determination on your handling of Skepchick and continue on with reading about ‘science based medicine’. But in this post, you are lying and shame on you! You are going out of your way to lie. I will just be done. Thank you for your contributions to the community and in your career. After reading this post, your contribution to my body of knowledge is done.
But we’ve gone pretty far afield and I’ve said what I can say the best I can say it, so as on the last thread I’m afraid I have to bow out.
“Someone who is not a transgender”, some truly useful concept there. Have these people jackshit to do other than looking at their own genitalia?
Did anyone click on the provided link, the sixth paragraph down. This is the group of ‘skepchicks’ Hall didn’t want to be affiliated with? http://www.magicdave.com/sccal/skepchicks.htm
If this is so then Hall should have spelled it “SkepChicks ‘99”. Does this link provide the general use of the word? I don’t see it. Personally, I am okay with people mixing me up with the Emily Rosa crowd.
I’m not sure what you think the point of this would be. I’m trying to make a straightforward, perhaps “postmodern,” linguistic point: Extended beyond a narrow group, which I doubt encompasses even the trans and trans-attracted universe, the word seems to have no use other than as a rhetorical cudgel. (Indeed, one could object to the binarity of the construction itself.) It is Other multiplying Other. Except that there might be Other Other Others.
I’ve understood the notion of cissexual since about 5 comments into the topic. It is quite straightforward. That’s not the issue. The issue is the necessity of the language all the time. Dear lord if I had to speak in “doctor speak” all the time I’d go bonkers. It’s absolutely invaluable when you really need to describe something absolutely precisely. You know, like when someone’s very mortality or morbidity are at stake? Yeah, very useful in those situations. Not so much for most of the rest of the time. Plus it has this horrible way of making everyone think you are a pompous jackass. Trust me, I’ve learned that the hard way. And nobody who can’t speak in colloquilisms, infer charitbly, laugh at a crass joke, and laugh at themselves is ever a close friend of mine. But hey, that’s just me I guess.
But the other thing I find strange is that the term is framed from an interestingly…. biased? perspective.
cis-sexual = not-transsexual
Aren’t we all in agreement that the terms cis- and trans- are opposite in meaning and essentially equivalent? They are literally just describing two different states. Like “bent” or “curved.” Or “together” and “apart.” It wouldn’t make sense to say that “bent is not curved” or “together is not apart.” So why would you say that “cissexual is not-transsexual?” They are merely “same sided” or “opposite sided” not “not same sided.”
And wouldn’t we all be in agreement that “cissexual” is the norm? By far? So why wouldn’t the more logical definition be:
trans-sexual = not-cissexual
?
I’ll try not to infer too much further here. But it seems to me that they should be defined as I defined above, rather than as one a reference to the other at all.
Actually, I openly admit to having been pretty ignorant about the whole cis/trans thing as applied to sexuality, but I figured it out right away because if you have a background in molecular biology, you know what cis and trans mean in the context of gene regulation. The usage in this context is easily analogized to the molecular biology usage. But that’s the only reason I sort of thought I knew what it meant when I first saw it. Fotunately, it was confirmed for me that my analogy had led me to the correct definitions of what it meant when the meaning of cis/trans was explained in the comments.
@ alephsquared: And…what would you like to be labeled as? Or shall I just call you “grue”?
Cis and trans have clear, physical positional senses. Give me a nonchemical English cis word other than “cisalpine” or “cisatlantic.” So where does the “position” arise? How common is “midsexual”?
@Dr. Hall “What if I had worn an “I love dogs” T-shirt and cat lovers had interpreted it as a direct personal insult to cat lovers and had felt hurt and offended?”
But you didn’t wear an “I love dogs” T-shirt. You wore a “down with cats” T-shirt*. As a cat person myself, if I met a person wearing a “down with cats” T-shirt, I would not let it go by uncommented.
*or “I’m a dog person. Not a cat person. Not a ferret person. Just dogs. I only love dogs.”
That’s probably why I picked up on it quite quickly as well Dr. Gorski. I knew from the first comment what was meant by the term, it just took me a few more comments to be certain what exactly it referred to (i.e. what two things were on the same “side” – in this case gender and sex).
My understanding is you are cis if you are “male-bodied” and identify as a “male” (and vice versa, female/woman)
you are trans if you are “male-bodied” and identify as a “female” (and vice versa, female/man)
So you can be a homosexual cissexual (a male-bodied person who identifies as a man and is sexually attracted to males; or female-bodied/woman attracted to females)
Or a heterosexual transexual (a male-bodied person who identified as female but is attracted to females)
and so on.
My critique still stands. As does Narad’s.
Oh bollocks. This whole ridiculous understanding is inane. Everyone who has commented it.
She didn’t say that. She said “I’m an animal person. Not a dog person. Not a cat person. Just an animal person.”
See what we mean about most uncharitable reading? And how incredibly egotistical you are to think that there is just absolutely no possible way it could have possibly ever in any universe ever possibly even remotely meant anything even close to something except exactly the Skepchicks that I am affiliated with which is exactly why I must be hurt over it!”
I mean someone even called Dr. Hall a liar. There are expletives waiting to be typed. You are so frakking cocksure you are willing to call her a liar and make the most uncharitable analogy you can so you can feel butthurt about it. Grow up and get over yourselves. I work in a poor, underserved, high school clinic these days and I feel like I come home and read something my patients would be writing.
sorry for the bad HTML tag. The last paragraph should not be italics.
Even if the shirt was a dig at The Skepchicks™, it’s a fair one. They have, at least for the last two years if not longer, acted as if when it comes to women they speak for all of them. So to tell them off and telling them that you’re not one of them is a perfectly reasonable response. Or how anybody else like it if I declare you part of my special club and if you don’t follow my rules I will try and publicly take you down / destroy you?
The amusing thing over the t-shirt for me is just how insecure, passive aggressive and outright ugly a certain segment of self-proclaimed “brights” can be. That this then culminated in the A+ cult was just the cherry on top.
@nybgrus “She didn’t say that. She said “I’m an animal person. Not a dog person. Not a cat person. Just an animal person.””
No, that’s not quite right either. It was more like “I’m an animal person. Not a cat person. Definitely definitely not a cat person. I can’t stress enough how much of a non-cat person I am. But I love all animals.”
I am not a big Harriet fan but she writes the best articles on SBM and I think it’s cool that she has her own wikipedia page.
Now… what is TAM?
Super article. (It didn’t actually take long to read) (truth by told, I made the above comments without properly reading)
Interesting point about Skep-chick vs Skepchick!
Another way to frame the charity thing is, to always give the other person the benefit of the doubt. I’m sometimes wrong; I sometimes reconsider my position when people DM me to speak to me.
By way of background, to anyone new to this, here’s some dialoguewith Amanda Marcotte discussing the t-shirt message with Amy D. Roth. Amy sounds hurt, but no offence was intended. If Watson & Roth don’t see this now, I hope they do, someday.
I keep thinking I’m done, but oddly the silverback thing is bothering me. Maybe I’ve been misusing it. I had always thought of it as a slightly derogatory gorilla analogy for (typically older, but not always) high-status males who aggressively defend their status, typically against the infiltration of equally-qualified women. I really like the visual I get of large male gorillas posturing and trying to intimidate everyone. (This differs from unintentional tone-deaf linguistic out-of-dateness IMO.) I don’t ever think of silverback as applying to women because in our society men by default enjoy status higher than women with the same achievements and qualifications. When I was chatting about this with a friend who is an OB/GYN, she thought I meant an aggressive pack of wolves fighting with each other and protecting their kill. Interesting.
Now I’m done. And maybe finished with the entire skeptical thing. I really dislike how these discussions always become so terribly hateful and unproductive. I’ve tried not to contribute to that, and regret if I have done so.
Wow. Keep digging hard to come up with the most uncharitable interpretation you can and be absolutely certain it is the correct one, because you can totally read minds. Maybe you should go for the JREF challenge and collect your million bucks.
Let’s see if I can make it a little more clear for you:
Skeptic: Overarching term that is a large umbrella covering the process of critical thought applied to any number of diverse topics
skepchick: a term originating 1999 to describe woman (female, cis-woman, whatever term you wish to use) skeptics who self identified and were comfortable with being referred to as “chicks”
Skepchick(™): The website Watson et al are affiliated with begun in 2004-2005ish and a term referring to their group as a specific subset of the original term “skepchick”
Therefore,
“I am a skeptic” = over arching term describing any individual who engages in the critical thought process applied to diverse topics.
“not a skepchick” (note lowercase ‘s’) = not a person who likes to be referred to as a “chick” and/or not a person who self identifies with being a “chick” who is a skeptic
“not a woman skeptic” (which makes the second part even more clear in context) = not a person who self identifes as a woman who is a skeptic
“just a skeptic” = the over arching term that Dr. Hall wishes to self identify with
Now, you want to claim that you know for sure that wasn’t her intent or her thought process. You want to claim that you have definitive knowledge that she intentionally wanted to use it as a slight against the Skepchicks(™). And you want to claim that there is no other possible interpretation to the terminology used in the shirt. Which I have just clearly demonstrated to be false.
Your two indictments against Dr. Hall ere that she was oblivious to the unintended meaning of how the shirt could have been read or the worst would be that she knew, didn’t intend it, but didn’t care if it was interpreted incorrectly.
Which is exactly why the whole thing is bollocks. So unless you show me that JREF million or you are willing to call Dr. Hall a liar (like someone else did) you have no real leg to stand on. And if you are willing to call her a liar then you really are lost indeed since Dr. Hall has more integrity in her pinky than most people do in their entire body (to use a cliche).
And even on top of all that even if it were her intent, as Micheal K came close to hitting on, it is still her right to do so!. I can decide I don’t like the Skepchicks(™) either and make a T-shirt expressing my distaste for them. Same as you can do one for SBM and Dr. Hall. And alternate them every day of TAM. And I bet she – and definitely I – would try and find out why, and see how we could rectify the situation and make you not want to wear that shirt. Not this sort of ridiculous childish fiasco. It’s like a bunch of high school students with the jocks making fun of the geeks. Even worse, the bandos making fun of the yearbook class.
@ Tanha: What is TAM? http://www.amazingmeeting.com/
I’m far more concerned with LGB young teens and the alarming rates of suicide attempts and suicides.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/04/18/peds.2010-3020.abstract
@ alephsquared:
“And…what would you like to be labeled as?”
I wouldn’t.
As a skeptic I support diversity of opinion, a diversity we can’t express if our freedom of speech is contingent upon the sensibilities of the most easily offended people. In many of the skeptical forums anti-blasphemy laws around the world have been widely reviled as attempts to criminalize free speech based on whether or not a group of people says they are offended. Blasphemy Day is promoted as a way to say that our right to speech must not be based upon whether others choose to be offended. So it is with some surprise that I’ve read that people asked Harriet Hall to remove a shirt that contained a positive affirmation of her position, her opinion, because someone else was offended. As Dr. Hall points out, that is an unreasonable request for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don’t control what other people find offensive–anybody can be offended by anything. I’m somehow doubtful that Ms. Watson would remove her own Skepchick branding should someone find it offensive, nor do I think she should. Likewise others should not have asked Dr. Hall to remove her statement that she is a skeptic and not a skepchick.
I remember briefly meeting Ms. Watson years ago at TAM in Vegas. I was impressed that she was clearly a leader. Someone people follow, someone people look to. Yet more recently I’ve been un-impressed with her petulance and lack of substance.
Yesterday she posted this in the previous thread:
That is a straw argument. Watson creates an imaginary Dr. Hall and tells us what her imaginary Hall thinks and feels. And never does she suggest that the imaginary Dr. Hall might just, you know, ask Dr. Novella what he means by the shirt.
So, let’s say that Ms. Watson feelings were hurt by Dr. Halls shirt. That really isn’t Dr. Hall’s problem, any more than it should be Ms. Watson’s problem if Hall were to be offended by Watson wearing a t-shirt saying Skepchick (which I don’t think Dr. Hall is, rather just doesn’t want the term applied to her, and affirmed her position with her shirt statement.)
Watson makes much the same mistake Christians make when they say atheists need to shut up and not say things Christians find offensive. The Christians ignore that their religion is blasphemy to others, that their freedom of speech comes from the same set of rights, the same principles, as the atheist’s free speech that Chrisian’s find offensive, that Christians curtail the speech of others at risk of curtailing their own. Watson seems to want the same special treatment Christians want to be free of offense, and for privileged primacy for her own opinions.
This bit seems like nothing more than a self-aggrandizing and condescending personal attack on Dr. Hall. That Watson’s respect for a person built up over years is so fickle it can vanish overnight if they wear a T-Shirt she doesn’t like, and, no, she won’t tell you why because if you do something she doesn’t like you don’t **deserve** an explanation. Which, I’d say is pretty hubristic of her. Again, Watson reminds me of Christians, in this case when they attempt avoid arguments on the merits by citing Matthew 7:6 “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” I think we probably all call Christians out on this dodge, and Watson deserves to be called out on it as well.
Right, Watson doesn’t think of Dr. Hall at all. Which is she dropped in here, to Dr. Hall’s thread, and composed and extensive post explaining in detail just how much she doesn’t think of Dr. Hall. Because Rebecca Watson’s time is so precious what she does is so much more interesting. This bit of condensation by Watson is self-refuting.
What is missing from Watson’s post is any actual rebuttal. The post is straw man attacks, calumny and and lacks any substance whatsoever. As Watson is the exemplar of the Skepchick brand, her petulant post only shows just how reasonable it can be for any self-respecting skeptic to wear an “I am not a Skepchick” T-Shirt.
As a parent of a child who needed special education, “labels” are only good for getting required educational services. Often the “label” is an inadequate description of the person. Ignore the person, just get to know them as an individual.
@ windriven:
My point exactly. I made that comment to alephsquared when he/she insisted that if I am not “trans” then I must be cis sexual/cis gender. I prefer to be called “straight”, not anti-trans, not the opposite of trans, not some other neologism, if someone feels compelled to label me.
Oh, crud, my brain and fingers were not in synch… ” Ignore the label, just get to know them as an individual.”
Carry on with trying to make us all conform to your preconceived molds. I will be watching at the sidelines creating my own beliefs based on the evidence. Including my opinion that I do not have to agree with Ms. Watson, Ms. Benson or Dr. Shermer, but still be able to enjoy a conversation with all of them. You can call me any nasty name you want, but I will still try be polite and listen.
Very well stated Skeptic.
Yeah, that went beyond the pale. There was no justification for it.
My final thoughts on the t-shirt debacle. I stringently disagree with those who feel Dr Hall has been dishonest with her post. I do think the justifications that she has given “jive” with her decision to wear the shirt as well as her choice of words to put on the shirt. I think the rationale was perhaps a bit naive; if she really wanted to put out a positive message that would, in her words, cause “no hard feelings”, it wouldn’t have been that hard to do.
An aside, who writes X and thinks, “Hmmm, X might cause hard feelings, I should put a smiley face right after it”. Who doesn’t realize if X does cause hard feelings, the smiley face is only going to look like a fat dollop of snark to go with it?
That said, I think the following (self-described) behavior on Dr. Hall’s part demonstrates a lot of immaturity.
Last week I learned that my aunt was both hurt and angry with me for something I’d told her. We’d been discussing some shoulder pain she’d been dealing with for several months. She indicated that it seemed to be getting worse and she felt it was time to see a doctor. I told her that it didn’t sound that painful and really she ought to just suck it up.
Except, that wasn’t what I’d told her at all. After she’d told me about her shoulder, I relayed my experience with chronic knee pain after a sports injury, and how miserable I’d been sucking it up rather than seeing a doctor. I’d intended to convey empathy, “Yeah, living with joint pain is miserable” and advice “I fully agree it’d be dumb to postpone seeing a doctor”. However, she took my words to mean, “Pssh. Your shoulder clearly hurts less than my knee, and I’ve been sucking it up for years, why can’t you?”
That proved to be an irreconcilable difference; we haven’t spoken since. After all, I was sorry she was upset, but I saw that as her problem, not mind. She was responsible for assuming she knew what I meant and she chose to let my words upset her. Instead of assuming, she might have given my words the most charitable interpretation or she might have simply asked me to clarify what I meant; but she never did. Besides, five other family members were listening in on the same conversation, and NONE of them took my story the way she did, and in things like this, majority rules. baldape right, aunt wrong.
Oh wait, scratch the last paragraph. That isn’t what happened. Now I remember how I react when I find out I’ve inadvertently caused someone to become upset! I picked up the phone and called her. We backtracked to the conversation, and figured out what I’d said and how it had came across to her. I explained why I’d said my story, what I’d meant to convey with my story, and I APOLOGIZED for presenting it in a way that could have been taken so negatively. She accepted my apology, and we’ve been on perfectly good terms since.
tl;dr: I do not think Dr. Hall has been dishonest in the least. Her rationale for the t-shirt strikes me as naive, but she hit rock bottom with her prideful/smug determination that it wasn’t her responsibility to not clarify her message once she learned that she was coming across as belligerent.
What surprises me most is how freethought advocates and artists can take offense to this kind of expression. Wearing a t-shirt, bracelet, necklace, button…these are visual ways of artistically expressing yourself which is one of the most passive methods of communicating an opinion I can think of.
Being “offended” or feeling “harassed” by clothing, jewelry, buttons, sounds like the behaviour of zealots or true believers, not skeptics promoting rational thinking and free thought.
We need to start realizing that this feeling which makes us spout claims of being offended and harassed is actually that uncomfortable feeling of facing criticism.
@nybgrus
I can read plain English. If Dr. Hall had wanted to be identified as “Just a skeptic.” there is an easy way to do that. Wear a t-shirt that just says “Skeptic.”
I realize this is the comments section, so a bit of strawmanning is going to be inevitable. But I think you were directing this line of reasoning at me, so I will respond.
I don’t claim to know Dr. Hall’s intent. However, when you don’t know someone’s intent, you can start with the text itself. A straightforward reading has the offensive interpretation. There are other possible interpretations, but the straightforward reading seems the most likely.
So now Dr. Hall is the Pope?
I won’t go as far as saying that she lied about her motivations. But aren’t we all skeptics here? Don’t we recognize that the easiest person to fool is one’s own self?
And don’t we understand that a person can be integrous [might not be a real word] in one field, but still maintain childish impulses in other compartments of their lives?
Do we not recognize that smart people can still make mistakes, get it wrong, and be petulant about it?
I will acknowledge that there are a few commenters on a few posts who have advocated for shutting her up. That is, banning the t-shirt, etc. However, I think the majority of skeptics, and probably even the majority of skeptical feminists, also believe in free speech, and would agree that Dr. Hall has the right to wear a stupid t-shirt.
And in the end, this whole controversy seems to be over the question: “is Dr. Hall’s shirt stupid?” Look, we’re allowed to be stupid sometimes. Skeptics are also often nerds, who are socially awkward at the best of times. We’re going to hurt each others’ feelings sometimes. It’s inevitable. But doubling down on a stupid t-shirt isn’t going to make it any better.
All this argument, parsing, picking, strife and vitriol over a few words displayed for 72 hours on a t-shirt?
And some people assert science and religion are so far apart! Not so, not so. This whole thing reads like a picayune theological argument inspired by Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian,” particularly the famous lost shoe scene.
Perhaps the TAM organizers should adopt the rule prevalent at junior high schools in troubled areas: no clothing with advertising, slogans or words can be worn while attending the event.
@baldape
I enjoyed your perspective on the T-shirt issue, but I feel your analogy fails in an important way. You and your aunt have a relationship you cherish, and direct, open lines of communication. Dr. Hall does not have that type of relationship with every member of the skeptic community. She could not have given an explanation which would have satisfied all of her detractors. (This fact is obvious based on the reactions she is still receiving despite her explanation.) Accepting reality, and not overly concerning one’s self about negative reactions seems reasonable and justified in these types of circumstances. People who didn’t like the T-shirt were unlikely to be convinced to like her reasons for the T-shirt, therefore, an explanation was of no value.
You and your aunt, OTOH, have a relationship where an explanation is of great value because it will be appreciated and, therefore, well received. Your aunt was unlikely to pick apart your every statement to discover your hidden agenda, and decide that you were either lying to yourself or to her.
Thank you, dr. Hall. Thank you, everyone. Now, how about using some of that marvellous energy and eloquence on discussing skeptical matters, like frauds and criminals offering useless and/or dangerous treatment to desperate patients?
And if you want to work on feminist/gay issues, there are lots of good causes: Girls in Africa being genitally mutilated. Girls in third world countries not being allowed to go to school. 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai being shot in the head by Pakistani extremists for promoting girls’ education in her blog. Homosexuals in Africa and the Middle East being threatened and killed. Indian women being raped and killed. Women and men in USA being raped. Women in USA being harassed for getting legal abortions. Abortions doctors being threatened and killed. There is a very long list of worthy causes, actually a long list of life-and-death causes.
Good luck and regards,
Pernille Nylehn
Norway
Dr. Hall,
I’m sorry to see that you are having to deal with all this ridiculous criticism. It’s pretty bad to see so many self-identified skeptics using quote-mining tactics against you that would make young-earth creationist proud.
I did want to make a point out about the use of queer. I don’t have ‘quantitative evidence’ that the majority of people are OK with the term, but I will say that that the term is so common that the LGBT club at my school has queer in the name, and one of the electives I am taking has LGBTQ in the course title (with the q standing for queer). Also, several of our presenters in that elective, who are mostly middle-aged individuals, use the term regularly. ‘Queer Studies’ is a proper academic field with departments using the word in their title, and there are numerous American universities where you can get a minor in queer studies. If universities are comfortable putting queer in the title of a department, and putting it on diplomas, I’m pretty sure they aren’t worried about offending many LGBT individuals.
@S. Madison:
True, you respond differently to complaints based on how much you care for the people who make them, or how much you value your relationship with them. But see, that’s exactly the issue: if you accept this argument, and apply it here, doesn’t that mean that not changing the shirt after upsetting certain people indicates that Dr. Hall doesn’t value her relation with these people much? So why does she insist “I’m not your enemy”, when her actions say “I don’t care about you”? Why would she be surprised if people respond negatively to that?
But “ignoring the complaints” and “convincing others to like her reasons” were not the only two options available to Dr. Hall, were they?
@Josh:
Hmmm… or you could just, you know, ask? And maybe get an answer? Oh right… that is exactly what didn’t happen before (folks just made up their minds) and now that it is actually answered… you still get to hang on to whatever you think was intended rather than the actual answer to the question?? That is indeed immature and asinine. You (and others) have already made a conclusion and are choosing to stick with it despite literally having the best evidence possible that you are wrong.
What a horrible characterization! The Pope is a vile lying sack of…
Well, I could read into what you wrote and pick a nit to completely derail the comment (seems to be a common thing to do these days) or I can just charitably interpret what you meant as a well meaning, if not dim and stupid, cliche to assert your incredulity that Dr. Hall has enough integrity to not lie about her intentions.
I have ample evidence to take her at her word. And by ample I mean way more than ample. What is your evidence that she would ever lie, let alone have motivation to do so here and now?
The rest of your comment is once again indicting Dr. Hall for wearing a stupid t-shirt with unintended implications. Yay! You win! She wore a dumb T-shirt! BTW, I have a t-shirt that says “Science: It Works Bitches!” and has a Fourier transform on the back. I’ve offended a few people wearing it. I’ve even been called “evangelical” for science. Not my intent, but hey, I guess I am a liar and horrible person as well.
And yeah, as was pointed out (sorry I don’t have the desire to look up your ‘nym for proper credit) above, wearing a T-shirt even if the intent was as you say is a perfectly reasonable means to make a statement. Only religious zealots get offended when you lampoon their ideology. If Dr. Hall wore a shirt that said “NyBgRus is a poopy head” I may be a bit offended, but c’est la vie. The first words out of my mouth would be “Why do you think I am a poopy head, Dr. Hall?” Not “How horrible a person you are to think I am a poopy head! You are stifling me and my freedoms and my message yadda yadda yadda.” Then, two outcomes can occur. Either she tells me why she thinks I am a poopy head or she says, “Well, in my day “poopy head” meant “cool guy” and really actually had nothing to do with you, so I don’t know why you are getting bent out of shape.” In the latter, I may comment it is weird and perhaps a bit dumb and then be over it. In the former, I would evaluate her reasons as to why she thinks I am a poopy head and if they sound valid to me I would change those things about myself as a means to improve. If not, I may argue back and forth a bit (civilly and rationally!) and perhaps agree to disagree. Fine, she thinks I’m a poopy head and I disagree with why. Let’s move on.
That is how rational, skeptical, adults handle such matters.
Or one can just keep reading whatever they want to read in order to maintain their hurt status. Which is what children and ideologues do.
No matter what one does someone will be offended. Period. Should Dr. Hall stop writing that homeopathy is quackery because some homeopaths find it offensive? Ridiculous. Should I stop writing about the evils of religion because I have religious friends? Absolutely not.
As the late great Hitch has said – nobody has a right not to be offended. And especially when the intent is not to offend, there is no rational reason to do any different. And yeah, I would also value the “relationship” I have with random strangers at a conference or on the internet less than my right to wear a shirt. Hence why I wear my “Teach the Controversy” shirt and my “Science: It Works Bitches!” shirt. I’ve had fellow scientists, atheists, and skeptics tell me they are offended by my shirts sometimes. Tough beans. You can deal with a little offense.. especially when it is not directed at you! No need to get butthurt over it.
As I have said over and over – the worst indictment here is that Dr. Hall wore a dumb shirt and was a bit oblivious (which I don’t even agree is the case). Wow, what a horrible offense. Seriously, get over yourselves. As someone mentioned somewhere in all of this, the fact that Rebecca Watson could go from “immense respect for Dr. Hall” to absolutely zero respect with zero desire to ever regain it in one weekend over a frakking T-Shirt is utterly ridiculous and stupid. There are things Hitch said and did that I disagree with. I’m not about to throw out everything I respect and admire about him because of it. That is how religious zealots act and think, not rational skeptical people.
Yup. ‘Fraid so.
@nybgrus:
So? Does that mean you can stop thinking about the consequences of your actions?
Who here is asking her to do that? We all agree that we care more about stopping quackery than about hurting the feelings of homeopaths. But that’s a conscious decision, with a clearly stated purpose. It’s all a matter of prioritization.
Nobody here is asking you to do that either. Why would we care? We don’t know them. However, when your friends ask you to tone it down, it gets different. Because if you don’t, you shouldn’t be surprised when they draw the conclusion that your desire to write about the evils of religion is more important to you than their friendship. If that is indeed the case, that can be a perfectly defensible choice (see above on homeopathy), but then you should take responsibility for that decision. That means you don’t get to act all surprised when they no longer consider you a friend. And you don’t get to expect that “We want the same things”, “I should have the right to say it”, or “I’m sorry you’re upset, but that’s your problem, not mine” will impress them much. Either you change your tune, or say “good riddance”, you can’t expect to have it both ways.
No, that’s not the worst indictment. It’s not so much about the message of the shirt. It’s about her refusal to change it when someone who was supposed to be an ally mentioned that it was hurtful to her. And the fact that she still can’t really own up to it.
As I read it, I don’t believe that Dr. Hall was saying she did not want to be associated with the 1999 group of skepchicks.
Did anyone click on the provided link, the sixth paragraph down. This is the group of ‘skepchicks’ Hall didn’t want to be affiliated with? http://www.magicdave.com/sccal/skepchicks.htm
If this is so then Hall should have spelled it “SkepChicks ‘99”. Does this link provide the general use of the word? I don’t see it. Personally, I am okay with people mixing me up with the Emily Rosa crowd.
I believe she was pointing out that the term small-s skepchick has long predated the use of the term as it applies to the website and group of bloggers that use it as Skepchick. I could be wrong.
And, she doesn’t want to be referred to as skepchick. Just…skeptic.
[quote]I have been to a lot of conferences, BTW — medical and public health type stuff — by a lot I mean more than a hundred, and I have never observed the kind of sexual aggression, sexist and boorish behavior that people are complaining about regarding TAM and other skeptical/atheist type events. It surprises me to hear about this.[/quote]
Really????? I hear about it all the time. Used to track it far more regularly until the Scienceblogs implosion that sort of scattered most of my favorite blogger to different websites making it harder to track. I have a feeling that like most of the issues that surround this sort of thing is just general ignorance. You don’t notice the sexism unless either people talk about it like Dr. Isis or someone is so moronic that they will literally call every single women in an academic conference ugly.
@Beowulff
“So? Does that mean you can stop thinking about the consequences of your actions?”
Strawman. nygbrus never implied that. Are you suggesting that obsessing about labels is superior to treating people with dignity and respect?
“we care more about stopping quackery than about hurting the feelings of homeopaths”
“Why would we care?”
And this, Beowulff, is precisely the point. When SBM and its commenters write about, say homeopathy, the attack is on the practice not on the practitioner – unless a specific practitioner’s behavior has been so egregious as to invite personal scrutiny. In those cases the personal attack is unambiguous and result from specific actions made by the target.
In an otherwise civil and mutually respectful conversation where a label is used that one party finds offensive, the mature response is to note the offense to the interlocutor with perhaps a brief explanation of why the term can be offensive, and move on. People of good will do not go out of their way to offend others. Neither do people of good will do not take offense at innocent transgressions*.
@ @ @ @
You know, a lot of important issues are covered in these columns. It sort of stuns me the number of words (including more than enough of my own) that have been spilled over labels these last few days. I’m really hoping that a new week will rekindle our interest in science and medicine and dampen our desire to attack each other over inanities.
*Is there such a thing as a cisgression?
I’m glad this will be your last post on this topic. Please, can we move on?
@Josh Treleaven: “So now Dr. Hall is the Pope?”
You didn’t get the memo?
“You didn’t get the memo?”
Boy are some people gonna get pissed when Dr. Hall wears her “I am not the Pope” t-shirt. Sooooo offensive.
@ windriven:
“*Is there such a thing as a cisgression?”
You’d have to ask Will about cisgression versus “heteronormative” and “cisnormative”
“Well, I intend to flip this fucking boat over and expose its underbelly. I’m not going to sit idly by while people spout of untruths and heteronormative, cisnormative, sexist, racist, ableist bullshit in the name of science because a few people might get their feelings hurt when they’re called out on it.” (Will’s last rant)
I think Her Holiness Pope Colonel Doctor Harriet Hall the Skeptical has a nice ring to it. Putting the “cis” in “Catholicism” and taking the Church out of uteruses everywhere! Or something.
The ‘I am not the Pope’ t-shirt will, of course, have to be in Latin. So, everyone’s familiarity with Latin, whether from Catholic school or from science, will come in just as handy as the cis- discussion.
I’m not really going to weigh in here and dissect in minute detail the meanings and nuances of words, but I have to admit that, when I saw the pic of Harriet Hall in that t shirt, I reluctantly put a little cross at the end of a long line of big ticks. But that’s probably because I HATE FRIGGIN’ SLOGANS ON T SHIRTS!
And it seems nybgrus has earned s little cross as well
I dunno. We all have access to Google translate now…so some people would be even *more* insulted by the “coded” insult.
“Non sum Papa”
What?? You hate fathers?? Offensive CisSexist Pig!!!
Oh, wait…”Pope…” Hmm…hold on while I find something to find offensive…got it…What?? You hate the Pope?? Anti-Free Thinking Religious Biggotttttt!!!!!
There’s just no winning when everyone thinks their right to be free from being offended must take precedent.
I can’t believe so many spleens have been vented over such petty and superficial squabbles over who offended who, what is the current politically correct terminology for what various sub-group, and basically what an incredibly humourless bunch skeptics seem to be. Or at least the ones commenting on this site.
I’ve not always agreed with Dr Halls points of view (her circumcision article comes to mind) and I don’t understand why ANYone would go into the military in ANY capacity…but I support her right to have her point of view, and state it without the petty attacks she has been subjected to, supposedly by members of her own community, the skeptics.
Lets get back to the purpose of this blog…Science Based Medicine.
Regarding the terminologies being bandied about, there is a medical approach to sex that is clinically useful that I learned in the 1970s. One needs to specify genetic sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, sex of internal and external genitalia, sex of rearing, and sex of orientation. There may be discordance among any of these and the physician needs to keep them in mind in order to recommend therapy for the individual patient.
Because she’s been so above this all, right? No talk of witch hunts or professional victims looking to be offended, right? None of that ever happened, I assume.
This whole thing is ridiculous. Those offended on Amy Roth’s behalf have behaved incredibly childishly towards Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall’s defenders have gone out of their way to be cruel and purposefully hurt.
Of the two I find Roth’s party less distasteful and judging from the complete disregard for others (Once again, thank you, Hitch, for giving jerks an excuse to be callous human beings) I’m glad to not be part of the skeptical community. You people are outright cruel and hurtful just to win a web argument.
Newcoaster,
Well, yes, an evolutionary dead-end in the sceptical movement you might say. But if threads like these serve to drive it into extinction, perhaps something will be achieved.
Here’s hoping…
Certainly an improvement over a 2×2 matrix if one thinks that language is actually for making distinctions.
As I was saying, “feminists” Hensley & Watson are lost causes.
There is a saying that ‘any bad publicity is good publicity’. Is there any consideration for financial motivation on Ms. Watson part? Her blog Skepchick makes money from advertisements and selling items like calendars. (Do those on her blog even receive any of that revenue?) Manufactured and exaggerated controversies serve her purpose to remain relevant and bring traffic to her blog. It is both in her social justice and financial interest to kick up a stink regularly.
Ms. Watson’s boycott of TAM was just that, a boycott to undercut support and finances from TAM. Pissing on someone else’s endeavors will result in pushback.
@draal:
That seems also maximally uncharitable and not something I would even entertain as a possibility without significant evidence leading me there. I certainly wouldn’t consider it and then search out confirming evidence, and I have no evidence coming my way to make me think it in the first place.
And with that I am off the comment grid ladies, gents, and whatever other term most comfortably describes you.
The next time anyone hears from me will be from the opposite quadrant of the world.
@nybgrus
Yes, it is uncharitable and I have no proof. But it is what I hear at the local skeptic meetups.
Julian wrote: ‘Of the two I find Roth’s party less distasteful and judging from the complete disregard for others (Once again, thank you, Hitch, for giving jerks an excuse to be callous human beings) I’m glad to not be part of the skeptical community. You people are outright cruel and hurtful just to win a web argument.’
Really? Would this be the same Julian who wrote at Freethought Blogs:
‘She sponsored 22 other women to attend. Repeat that to yourself. She said outright she would not have done that if she thought the event dangerous. Repeat that to yourself.
And then go fuck yourself. Off a bridge or something.’
‘Mind if I tear [your backbone] out and give it to her?’
‘Call me a spic and I’ll snap your damn neck.’
‘btw, I’m going to break your neck wasn’t a threat. We were discussing racial slurs and what’s acceptable and I mentioned I have no qualms snapping the neck of someone who calls me a spic.’
If you aren’t the same Julian, then please accept my apologies for inadvertantly making you look so cruel, callous and hurtful.
Comment 1: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/07/in-your-face/#comment-223569
Comment 2: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/07/18/tams-harassment-policy-was-secret-why/#comment-72037
Comment 3: http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/07/in-your-face/#comment-223743
Comment 4: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/01/30/i-get-mail-apparently-i-am-officially-a-ftbully/comment-page-1/#comment-45020
@tigzy
Oh please. If you’re going to attack me with racial slurs I don’t see why I shouldn’t respond in kind. That isn’t callous or cruel.
That Hall’s defenders are so comfortable with racist language and other bigoted speech is another reason why I can’t stand them. Hell, you all make me sick to my stomach.
@julian
Ah, right – so breaking the neck of someone who calls you a spic is, by your definition, responding in kind. Gotcha. Bearing in mind that the person – racist asshole though they may be – may have family, be a parent, or have loved ones, murdering or paralysing said asshole is not a bit callous or cruel because it’s entirely on a par with insulting you with a racist epithet…right?
By the way – the people who you resonded to with ‘fuck yourself…off a bridge’ and ‘mind if I tear out your backbone’ – were they being racist towards you as well?
This is what I’m talking about. You have no way of verifying this or of confirming it and yet here you are repeating it and treating it as a valid interpretation. You’re literally accusing people of making up harassment and outrage just to make a few dollars.
And yet no one is chastising you about it. At least not in the same way Watson, Benson or Myers are being chastised. Do you see how ridiculous this double standard is starting to get?
You put it so much better than I did.
Oh, I am fully aware. Any why would I still make the comment?
Because this whole pissing match is ridiculous and I’m rationalizing to understand it to my satisfaction. As far as I can tell, this type of BS has been going on since ElevatorGate. Whatever issue she had with DJ Grothe should have been resolved through a phone call or email. But instead she stooped to his dickish level and replied publicly with a boycott. Egocentric and childish. It continued to the point that it was mentioned briefly on the SGU. I commend Dr. Novella for resisting so long not bringing up. But alas.
And now this pissing match between Dr. Hall and Skepchick.org. Ms. Watson explicitly stated she was incapable of resolving her issues privately and again responded publicly. Ms. Watson has a track record of not being a problem solver. Rather, she fans the flames. So I asked what is her motivation? Generating traffic and monies I reasoned. Uncharitable? yes. double standard? Yes! Do I care if I’m being unfair or I’m wrong? Not really.
I like the SBM blog and bloggers better than Ms.Watson and her blog. So, when it comes to double standards, I picked a side. So, now what? Feed the troll to make yourself feel better? Please do so. I’m hungry.
Maybe we need to close this thread now,
I think they should all be shut down. It is time to move on.
@Julian and tigzy
That’s quite enough. The racial stuff and borderline threats are way beyond the pale.
@windriven
Please point out where I have been racist (assuming that’s what you mean by ‘racial stuff’) and where I have made borderline threats.
Well, I dunno, when you see a driverless car with kids in the back rolling down a hill, you jump in and pull on the brakes….
@BillyJoe
Yes, let back to Science Based Medicine.
Looking forward to Dr. Hall’s next post and hope she is not distracted by this nonsense any more. She deserves a lot more respect than some of posters have shown here.
@tizgy
I won’t dignify some of the terms and tone used in your exchange with Julian by repeating them. If you don’t understand where some of that exchange was well beyond the boundaries of civilized discourse then you are beyond hope. I don’t know or care what your beef is with Julian but don’t drag it into SBM.
This is supposed to be a forum about science in general and science-based medicine in particular. It is not a forum for crude epithets and personal attacks – though one might be forgiven for missing that given the tone of the threads associated with a t-shirt.
Re “queer:” It has a generational and cultural evolution, with its roots in activism and inclusivity, starting with ACT-UP becoming known as Queer Nation in the 90s. Abigail Garner says in Families like mine: Children of gay parents tell it like it is (2005) “While some people find the word “queer” to be helpful and affirming, other people are offended by it. I used the word freely in this book in ways that I would not have just a few years ago. It was a shameful and forbidden word in my home growing up, so hearing it used to trigger a physical reaction for me, like getting kicked in the gut. More recently, I have grown comfortable saying “queer” as I hear it used by activists whom I respect. For my parents’ generation, however, the word still evokes its history as a hurtful slur. So while I frequently say “queer,” I understand that not everyone cares to reclaim it.” (p. 11)
Mary Gray (who grew up in California’s Central Valley) echoes this in her preface to Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America (2009): “I laid claim to a “queer” identity just as Queer Nation’s nearby San Francisco chapter dissolved in 1991. Perhaps, like those before me who chose to identify as “gay” rather than “homosexual” or “lesbian” rather than “gay woman,” coming out as queer seemed to verbalize the politics of my desire. It also gave voice to my desire for political change. No word other than “queer” described my sense of self and no other has felt quite right since (p. xiii).
In addition to self-identification for political reasons, “queer” has been embraced for reasons of convenience. According to Sheffield and Barriault: “Institutionalized heterosexism affects a wide range of people from many different backgrounds, including lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgendered, transsexual, intersexed, two-spirited, and questioning individuals. In referring to this diverse group of people, we could use the popular acronym LGBT (or GLBT), knowing that it excludes some members of the group; or, we could use the more inclusive acronym LGBTTITSQ, which is admittedly cumbersome. Using the word “queer” as an umbrella word to designate all people whose sexuality is generally considered non-heteronormative is both a more inclusive and a more practical choice.” (Sheffield, R., Barriault, M.. Note from the Guest Editors. Archivaria, North America, 68, jan. 2010).
Levy and Johnson found that “Inclusion of queer identified individuals and use of the term had several implications for the outcome [of their research]. First, like the first author, many adults (colleagues, school personnel, etc.) were surprised about the inclusion of the word queer in the recruitment materials; however, the young participants were not surprised at all. ‘I think it’s just a generational thing’, said Nicholas. In fact, all of the participants knew at least one Queer identified person in their social circle. The Queer identified youth also indicated an appreciation for inclusion, noting, ‘I avoid campus programming and social events that only focus on lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, so I likely would have avoided your project too’.” (What does the Q mean? Including queer voices in qualitative research. Denise L. Levy and Corey W. Johnson
Qualitative Social Work 2012 11: 130)
Levy and Johnson go on to say: “Finally, it is worth noting that the term queer continues to be viewed as offensive to some GLBT individuals and heterosexual people (Browne, 2008; Eaklor, 2008). Because historically GLBT individuals have fought to legitimate their sexual identities, some (mostly older generations) believe that queer theory actually diminishes the efficacy of their sexual identity categories (Jagose, 1996). Thus, queer research might exclude some GLBT subjects who would otherwise be interested in participating. In addition, many older heterosexual individuals still cling to the conventional wisdom that queer is derogatory and can and should never be used to describe people, and thus are unwilling to name the identities of Queer people.”
While I found no data to indicate what actual percent of the LGBT community finds the term offensive, it is instructive to note that in surveys of self-identification, “queer” is commonly listed, or added to the survey to refine classification based on responses to “Other.” For example in a study conducted to establish the prevalence of smoking in the LGBT community, “Queer Women” (5.1 percent), “Queer Men” (1.2 percent) and “Gender Queer” (1.6 percent) were added based the responses to “other.” ((Clarke, M. P., & Coughlin, J. R. (2011). Prevalence of Smoking Among the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTTQ) Subpopulations in Toronto–The Toronto Rainbow Tobacco Survey (TRTS). Canadian Journal of Public Health, 103(2), 132-36)).
Self-identification as queer seems to be more common in the transgender community. In their survey of transgender people, Riggle et al. found that when participants were asked to choose the label that came closest to describing their sexual orientation or identity, 23 percent chose ‘bisexual’, 21 percent ‘queer’, 16 percent ‘no label or other’, 15 percent ‘straight/heterosexual’, 10 percent ‘gay’, 10 percent ‘lesbian’ and 5 percent ‘questioning’. (Average age 40, range 18-74.) (Riggle, E. D., Rostosky, S. S., McCants, L. E., & Pascale-Hague, D. (2011). The positive aspects of a transgender self-identification. Psychology & Sexuality, 2(2), 147-158.)
Another indicator of how offensive the term is in general can be evaluated by how often it is used as a descriptor in research publications. For example, in discussing how self-disclosure affects women who are consumers and providers of mental health services, Daley as a matter of course uses the term lesbian/queer and LQ. (Daley, A. (2010). Being recognized, accepted, and affirmed: self-disclosure of lesbian/queer sexuality within psychiatric and mental health service settings. Social Work in Mental Health, 8(4), 336-355.)
In summary, the use and meaning of the word “queer” is evolving in the LBGT community from a word of denigration to a word of activism and inclusivity, in particular of the transgender community, and a reflection of the fluidity of sexual and gender identity.
superdave: in particular about the importance of using the accurate and up-to-date terminology you can. You would expect a post on SBM to contain accurate and up to date information if it was about cancer treatments and gender studies deserves the same treatment.
Well, there is one problem with this approach – you can define new terms in your field of study, but you cannot redefine already existing words from the common language and then force everyone to comply with your new definitions. This is just a pseudoscience from the linguistic point of view.
Modern linguistic theory is AFAIK mainly descriptive, so ‘proper’ meaning of a word is not based on some complex and abstract ideas of how language should be formed, but based an empirical, statistical evidence how it is used in the real world (see corpus linguistics).
Therefore, such ‘language police’ has nothing to do with scientific approach and such arguments (like nitpicking about differences between social and biological meanings of words ‘man’ or ‘woman’) are irrelevant and fallacious.
Note that the post does not object to term ‘cissexual’ and other neologisms (they are OK to define arbitrarily as terms).
@Windriven
Ah. So you couldn’t point out where I had said anything racist or borderline threatening – unless I was paraphrasing Julian, of course.
So if you do have a point to make to me, please offer something more substantial than a lavender-scented vacuity.
Michael K:
Hint: I believe Dr. Gorski coined the term “quackademic medicine”; that should help your Googling quite a bit.
Actually, I didn’t coin that term, although I really, really wish I had. I do think, however, that I’ve done more than pretty much anyone else to popularize it.
Some terms I’m quite sure I did coin are:
1. Pharma shill gambit
2. Galileo gambit
3. The “toxins” gambit (with respect to vaccines)
Another thing that might help is if he’s at all familiar with a certain British SF show from 30 years ago featuring a bunch of rebels fighting an evil galactic empire known as the Federation who were assisted by a certain rather amazing computer.
Hey, I know I coined the terms “naturopathillogical” and “licensed falsehood.”
FWIW.
-r.c.
We are sorry, Michael K, but discussion of the “other blog” is only by inference. First rule of speaking about one of the worst kept secrets on teh internets is that we never refer to the “other blog” by name on either blog.
Oh, and I want to take credit for “mercury militia” and/or “mercury moms”, but I can’t. I believe I did come up with “aluminati” using a previous poisonous ‘nym on the other blog.
First rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
Finally, a spot of light, thanks to Steve’s mediation:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/moving-forward/
Let’s hope this is the beginning of a new trend.
Amphigorey posts over at BandW. “I’d be interested in hearing Hall’s explanation for the front of the shirt (“I feel safe and welcome at TAM”), which I’m having trouble reading as anything but a dig at Rebecca Watson.”
Just to clear things up for some of the little flowers over there, yes, that message was a dig at Rebecca Watson, plus some of the other Skepchicks who were harassing DJ and generally making TAM out to be a cesspit of misogyny and danger.
Problem?
Believe it or not, there are plenty in the community who have good reasons to have a “dig” at Rebecca Watson. Contrary to what some might believe, she is not above suspicion, and certainly not above criticism.
Get used to it.
@Santiago, modern science appropriates words all the time and vice versa. Think of all the problems that have come in the last 10 years because of the difference between the scientific usage of the word theory and everyday usage.
[...] martyr cloak and skeptics who don’t agree have to tip-toe around her lest they displease her, explaining their behavior in great detail only to get a dismissive, passive-aggressive reply over a year after the [...]
[...] View the original article here [...]