Feb 19 2013
I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics”.
286 Responses to “I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics”
Dr. Hall:
Some of us older women have been offended that a young man ignores the experience many of us had forty years ago. We noticed that there was some very weird reading comprehension issues to what you actually wrote.
I noticed that you said “breast is best” after saying men can nurture babies. Both are true. Of course during the next week the NY Times had an article about male couples who had children getting breastmilk from the internet. There are sites to get untested excess breastmilk, plus there are others where tested (and/or pasteurized) breastmilk can be bought. So, that is a non-issue. Men have been proven to be nurturers. And at no point did your article say otherwise. Will needs to catch up that phenomena.
He also needs to actually listen to us and our experience. I have personally had my competence questioned by my gender by those who did not even know that multivariable nonlinear second order differential equations existed at a time when my job description was to get the finite element data to solve several to predict their dynamic behavior. Perhaps he has had an older co-worker propose a sexual liaison in thanks for help with a computer analysis issue, I don’t know. A proposal that left me speechless when it happened to me (I and the other male engineer just a desk away stood there like deer in head lights… I did eventually say “Please save me from dirty old men.”).
It is thinking like his that I dropped out of that ridiculous “Women’s Studies” class on “women and work” after working in a real factory as an engineering intern and talking to woman who really worked that has turned me off of some areas of the “social sciences.” Colonel Hall and myself do not need to learn about your “science” if it means ignoring what we have to say.
By the way, I became a “traditional housewife” after the birth of my first child. There was no way I would have known that he would have multiple medical issues, and it turns out by just a factor of a calendar I made slightly less than my spouse (he graduated from college before me). But both of us have nurtured all of our children, including spending hospital nights with the oldest (he has been in several). It is just that I spent many more in therapy waiting rooms and dealing with insurance. It was just the luck of the draw. These are not things that can be dealt with by a nanny (and when I did the numbers, I would have brought a net salary less than the nanny!). I’m am sure Will will now tell me that I do not know the ins and outs of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, even though I have been part of several IEP meetings.
But I still know more about applied mathematics and the importance of Euler’s Formula than dear hubby. He barely passed Diffy Q, but as a computer engineer he only has to count from 0 to 1. (it’s a joke, deal with it)
I am also thankful that being a skeptic over thirty years ago, including a subscription to Skeptical Inquirer, made me immune to the nonsense peddled to parents with disabled children. This is the thing that has perhaps saved me from more grief and cash than anyone will ever know. I have been a skeptic much longer than any “skepchick.”
Do not ever call my over fifty year old self a “chick.” I was insulted when I was called that as engineer twenty some years ago. That included one who engineer asked me what he should call me when I asked him to not call me that, and I told him to call me “Chris.” Is that so difficult?
Oh, and another thing… I am going to quote a George Hrab character: “I’m old, what’s your excuse?”
None of the other stuff youve said matters unless this point is made clear to you: “He wants to dictate how I use language, yet he uses the word queer, a term most people in the LGBT community consider offensive. He insults me by saying I am ignorant of what gender means.”
There are tons of self identified queers. I am one. Generally the acronym is LGBTQ for this reason. Queer studies is an academic field. “Queer” has long since been reclaimed by gender-variant and sexual minorities. If you are so out of touch with LGBTQ people and ideas that you think our chosen word to identify ourselves and our movement is “a term most people in the LGBT community consider offensive” then I seriously doubt your knowledge of gender studies. It sounds pretty ignorant to me, and shows me that you are not willing to educate yourself on queer topics enough to get even this simple thing right.
Conflating gender and sex is not just a matter of grammar or pedantry, it is an insult to gender-variant people. To say that lactation and birthing is a female endeavor when trans men lactate and give birth is an insult. Its not just about science or DNA at that point – its about a system of oppression that erases trans identities. By claiming that certain things are female you are being cissexist in a profoundly offensive way.
I don’t care what is scientifically right or wrong if what you say is destroying the dignity, respect, rights and value of trans people. Reducing people to their genitals or chromosomes is doing just that.
Instead of trying to defend yourself, why don’t you try apologizing to all of the queers and trans people you’ve offended with your original post?
An excellent response, especially in combination with your regularly scheduled article. I was initially concerned by the criticism, but going back and rereading your original article, I can’t find anything particularly objectionable in it–it’s a well-cited piece which summarizes to “population level aptitude differences probably exist along sex-based lines, but we completely don’t know what they are yet, and they don’t even mean anything on an individual level.”
I will, however, note that your statement that many in the LGBT community consider the term ‘queer’ offensive. While this was true historically, and some older members still consider it so, the term has largely been reclaimed, not only as an umbrella term for the community to help encompass pansexual, asexual, gender non-conforming, and other non-heterosexual, non-cisgender identities, but also as a flexible label to describe otherwise-unspecified non-heterosexual sexuality.
“(insert name) does not understand the difference between sex and gender”
Does people still use this argument…? Amazing…
You could beg them to send you the Malleus Maleficarum that they use, read it carefully, perform copious and very public acts of contrition, and submit any future writings to Ophelia Benson and Will.I.Maybe before publishing anywhere.
Or, you could just smile and cordially invite them to fornicate themselves.
Personally, I suggest the latter.
Who the hell made Ophelia Benson or whoever the hell Will is the grand arbiters of feminism? Pissy, self-absorbed, bloody-minded martinets.
It always amazes me when people within the skeptical community don’t know how to argue properly and throw logical fallacies at people. When you remove the words he put in your mouth where does that leave his argument?
@audpicc
” Generally the acronym is LGBTQ for this reason.”
No kidding? Gee, I’ve been around since the days when homosexual activity was illegal in some states and I’d never seen that acronym till today.
“why don’t you try apologizing to all of the queers and trans people you’ve offended with your original post?”
And just what was so offensive as to require an apology? Just what was it that Dr. Hall wrote that cut you to the quick?
It’s a tough world out there, bucky. There are still plenty of neanderthals who joyously pummel gays (occasionally to death) who are just trying to live their lives. Yet you feel that your efforts are best spent lecturing Dr. Hall on the fine points of queer nomenclature?
Perspective matters. Embrace it so you don’t come off as a puling neurotic.
I’m sorry you felt you had to defend yourself at all. Your writing was clear and concise to rational people. I don’t see where it’s necessary to agree with every word someone writes. For example, in your bullet points you say:
“That women should not just stay home and take care of kids”
“That society has much to gain from letting everyone, male and female, develop their individual talents in a field of endeavor that they have freely chosen”.
Now, if I were like these critics, then upon reading the first statement , I might get prickly, and interpret that to mean that you have no respect for homemakers, (which should be dispelled not only by having read a lot of your work, but by the second quote), but touchy people don’t look at the totality; they seize on a phrase or word usage and build a big old mountain out of a molehill.
I knew someone was going to jump in on your use of “queer” and I think that line of reasoning fits my example above. Breastfeeding is another topic where it is difficult to say anything at all without offending someone. Some people have extremely thin skins and cannot be placated unless you totally bend to views that are generally considered narrow, (or apply to very small numbers of people) to put it mildly.
I encounter this type of thing when I write comments to articles about weight loss. I say something innocent enough like, “you have to learn to eat less” and I get stuff back that is 500 words of, “you hate fat people you bigot”, “if you want to be in a constant state of starvation…”, “you are in thrall to the medical community and should read (fill in the blank current diet book guru)”, and my favorite: “your words are arrogant in the extreme” (!)–I never get than one at all.
It sounds trite, but you really cannot please all of the people all of the time.
This. I’ve been out for 14 years, and even before that (while I tentatively dipped my toes in the waters of “Maybe I’m not straight” and sought online guidance) it was being used positively. In fact, it’s a pretty common identifier for newly out/questioning people to use while they figure out where exactly they fit in the sexuality spectrum. I mean hasn’t “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” been around since the 80s?
Queer as Folk? Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? The former was *huge* in the UK when it came out (pun intended) in the late 90s. This is not a brand new phenomenon.
There’s a sizable population of people who identify as “genderqueer” too, that term’s been around for quite a while.
The truth is that many hurtful epithets have been taken back. “F*g” and “d*ke” being two of them. Just as various black and ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities have adopted slurs to take the power away from their oppressors, so have LGBTQ people. Since the 80s when, in the wake of the AIDS crisis, LGBTQ people became significantly more politicised and driven to make the point that we’re not going away, the ability to take hurtful language and reshape it has helped in the push to empower people.
It is still used as a weapon by some people, of course, and for many older LGBT people it is not a term they would ever reclaim, due to painful incidents when it was freely used against them. That’s why it’s not an identifier that you can impose on someone else, but something chosen by queer-identifying people for themselves.
Great and thorough response, Dr. Hall, but I’m sorry that you felt you had to do it. Nobody who had actually followed your writings would have made all those negative interpretations.
“Will” seems to be such a magnificent feminist that he’s projected himself into a hypervigilant state. I think that Saint Paul wrote something about how it’s good to not take offense too easily. Let’s assume some mutual good intentions, shall we?
And for some reason, this little scuffle reminded me of a favorite scene in the movie “Adam’s Rib” (1949):
Kip: Well, good luck tomorrow, Amanda. I’m on your side, I guess you know that. You’ve got me so convinced, I may even go out and become a woman.
Adam (aside): And he wouldn’t have far to go, either.
Some of us need to lighten up. Keep on truckin’!
Oh and I’d like to point out that my comment above is not an attack on anyone. It’s more borne out of curiosity (over a perceived unawareness the reclamation of “queer”) and just some info on how it’s used by various groups and subgroups in the LGBTQ/QUILTBAG spectra.
I honestly thought that this was common knowledge. I know that the situation in the US is pretty vastly different to the one here in the UK, but I assumed that usage of “Queer” as a reclaimed self-identifier was a given even for those not in the relevant communities.
I think we all should remember the principle of charity, something which is often missing in these internal fights.
When considering another’s argument it helps to give it the most charitable interpretation, to argue against the best possible argument on the “other side.” This is the antidote to the straw man fallacy. If you are not charitable then it is likely that you will waste time arguing against a position that was never articulated.
Find common ground and be charitable. How many times have we as skeptics advocated this approach when dealing with the most dedicated charlatans or pseudoscientists? It seems like we should be able to extend the courtesy to others in our own community.
My problem with so many of the exchanges that are fueling internal strife is that they are maximally uncharitable to the target of their criticism. This is very counterproductive.
I should stop being surprised at how eerily accurate South Park is at predicting the future.
One of the aspects inherent to the human condition is ingrouping and outgrouping. Another is the desire for easily-identifiable heroes and villains. The reality is, it’s very easy to find someone to hate, it’s harder to tolerate disagreements.
@audpicc:
The reality is, terminology is different according to country, language and individual. Some might find “queer” offensive, others not. Not everybody is interested in the most up to date terminology for various groups, be they black/African American (as a Canadian, I have no idea what term is considered polite here, I stick with “black” but I’m sure that offends some), Native/Aboriginal, or any of the variants of human sexuality. Do you think Dr. Hall was trying to offend anyone? Perhaps a better option would have been politely noting that some people do find the terminology acceptable or offensive, rather than taking the alienating approach of calling her ignorant. I support the rights of homosexual people to be protected from discrimination (including discrimination against marriage, adoption and the like) but am not sufficiently interested in the topic beyond that to care what the most acceptable terminology is for everyone. I personally will usually stick with “homosexual”, or “gay/lesbian” but have to think about what a “transsexual man” means in terms of birth and/or genetic sex. Language is important, and you used it to attach a lot of negative associations to anyone who appreciates Dr. Hall’s work.
Only if it’s meant as an insult. Scientifically, “female” is determined by the sex possessing the larger of the reproductive cells. Realistically, you have to be biologically a female to give birth. In practice, most people who give birth are biologically female and have not undergone sexual reassignment surgery. Saying lactation and birthing is a female endeavour is both accurate in scientific terms and practical shorthand since the percentage of trans men who give birth is a vanishingly small percentage of everyone giving birth. English, one of the richest and most diverse languages on the planet, doesn’t have the words to deal with this. Claiming this is an effort to “erase” trans identities is a bit of an over-reaction, it’s extraordinarily difficult and space-consuming to try to cover every single base in every single case. And before you decide I’m attempting to “erase” trans identities rather than reflect on the realities and practicalities of language, I suggest you read my comment here.
Isn’t sexual reassignment surgery used by genetic and birth males to construct a vagina, in more than a small way, reducing people and identity to genitals? It’s complicated, and it’s different for essentially everyone. Science and humans in general are efforts to paper over continuums with categories, that don’t and can never work for everyone. It’s imperfect, it always will be, and it’s rarely an effort to deliberately offend.
Why didn’t you choose to politely indicate some of the areas and groups her posts might or might not have applied to instead of assuming offence was intended? I would have read, with interest, your discussion of your knowledge and experience as a queer person and how it feeds into this debate as one among many stakeholder groups. Instead you decided the entire post was an attempt to offend all transsexuals. Transsexualism wasn’t Dr. Hall’s original focus, not every post can cover every topic, but certainly comments can involve a polite discussion of the complications of sex and gender and how it affects minority groups that have even less visibility than homosexual people. That would have been interesting, instead of alienating. I’m not saying transsexual people don’t have a right to be angry at their treatment and lack of recognition. I have no idea what your life is like and I imagine it is quite difficult in many ways. That being said, by assuming offence and seeking to cause hurt with your reply, you’ve now made me uninterested in learning much more.
I guess I was totally mistaken to have believed that the goal is a society that recognizes that we are all part of the community of humans, that takes us as we come and values us by our character and our contributions, that works to assure a valued place for everyone.
Now I’ve learned that the unifier is not our shared humanity but the tiny, miserable differences that must be carefully noted and acknowledged and woe be to those who fail to frame that acknowledgment with exactly the right nouns and adjectives.
Is this where the quest for social equality has taken us? Really?
I’m absolutely blown away by the boondoggle of a piece that “Will” has written. I am also blown away that anyone would think to tell someone like yourself or Chris that their opinion on the matter is definitive. Or really anyone that any opinion is absolutely definitive. That is certainly not a skeptical attitude.
I for one consider myself a feminist and a skeptic (amongst other things) and part of that means that if someone more erudite on a topic than myself has something to say, I shut the fuck up an listen. Pardon my language, but as windriven said, it is mind bogglingly counterproductive and stupid. I may ultimately counter and discuss and refine points and hey, I may sometimes be more right on a specific narrow topic than you or Chris. I would consider that not a “victory” but a point of personal pride that I have learned enough to be able to civilly demonstrate to someone such as yourselves a finer point you may not have considered. And I know for a fact that you would be more than willing to accept such commentary. The “queer” term is one example. But the way in which audpicc approached it is downright insulting, counterproductive, inflammatory, and renders the point nearly worthless. Elburto approached it in a much more reasonable manner. We all make mistakes, no matter who we are. The best of us – such as yourself Dr. Hall – are happy to admit them and move on. The worst of us take the mistake to be some sinister conspiracy or, even worse as audpicc states that because you made an apparent gaff on a single narrow point, that the rest of your writing isn’t even worth considering.
I’ll state it quite clearly now:
Audpicc – that sort of attitude is inane, childish, asinine, and the same kind of bullshit that CAM purveyors and pseudoscientists use to try and discredit anything of actual value. Your statement is a boondoggle of a self serving rant that actively and directly undermines your entire point, taking something minor and blowing it so out of proportion as to overshadow all the incredibly good work towards common goals with which you agree that Dr. Hall has done and continues to do. I understand the impulse and the reaction, but if you want to be taken seriously grow up and show some maturity. There are vastly more productive ways to approach an issue.
I reckon much like you, Dr. Hall, this is leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. My original comment(s) about the Shermer/Benson thing still stand – I think that initially Benson was merely using the slip o’ the tongue on Shermer’s part to illustrate a point; to the same end as I would have used yours on “queer” to do the same (perhaps she didn’t do as good a job as she could have, but we can extend a bit of the principle of charity here). But then it has spiraled out of control. And it is a damned shame. The correct urban dictionary term for this is getting ButtHurt which I am now awaiting the onslaught of criticism about how terrible a human being I am for using that term because undoubtedly there is some etymological reason why it is particularly insensitive and completely and totally undermines all the work I have ever done and everything I have ever written here at SBM and elsewhere.
Bah. I’m more and more starting to see Dr. Novella’s point about “the skeptical tent” and indeed felt that Jamy Ian Swiss’ talk was quite moving and powerful after I had listened to it (even though I went into it having been tainted by PZ Myers’ take on it, I still managed to maintain some objectivity and feel he was doing exactly what we are seeing here).
I am an atheist, an anti-theist, a feminist, a gay rights activist, anti-CAM, anti-pseudoscience, egalitarian, humanist, secularist, scientist, and by the end of this year an actual physician (eek!) but above all else I find myself most identifying with and primarily a scientific skeptic and rationalist. It is a process to get there, IMO, and I made mis-steps along the way. But I don’t think I ever had the vitriolic and provincial attitude that I have been seeing amongst the skeptic and freethought circles lately.
Anyways, I’m done ranting at this point. Apologies for it. I just want to be clear that despite this bad taste and the fact that we are now squabbling amongst ourselves and our allies who share common goals in addition to the actual people and ideas we should be combatting, I still see good reason to persevere and keep fighting the good fight and I hope you do too Dr. Hall.
Isn’t sexual reassignment surgery used by genetic and birth males to construct a vagina, in more than a small way, reducing people and identity to genitals?
Picking at ‘tiny, miserable differences’, as windriven would say.
One reason that there is a move to refer to ‘gender reassignment surgery’ is that not all transgender people chose to surgically alter their genitals. Some only change their secondary sexual characteristics to enhance what hormones can accomplish in those areas. That’s still GRS. So no, transgender people do not inherently reduce people and identities to genitals. That’s a false assumption not based on facts.
My comment in moderation is certainly not as sophisticated and professional as that of Dr. Novella or WLU, but I enthusiastically agree with their points and echo them in my own comment.
And elburto – I specifically mention that your comment was indeed a reasonably appropriate one an an example of a positive discourse in direct contrast to audpicc’s.
In any event, I’ve said my peace in my own faulty way and will probably not comment much further on these topics. I do read the comments and learn from them, but one expression of my own exasperation with a devolution into a touch of profanity is more than enough.
In fact, I’m feeling a bit embarassed at my own lapse in professionalism in that comment, justified as I feel it may be. WLU and Dr. Novella essentially echoed my own sentiments (I even specifically mentioned the principle of charity), and the remainder of what I wrote was venting my own frustrations at the ridiculous infighting. I’ll leave it at Dr. Hall’s discretion whether she feels the comment should be published or not. She’ll read it either way and much of it, including the conclusion, is directed towards her.
In the meantime, I have better things to do than participate in such a squabble and despite my human compunction to partake I will go and do those things.
Hi Harriet,
I won’t bother commenting on the sex/gender argument, as Will is more than capable of handling that. I will echo a few other commenters and point out that your “queer” statement doesn’t do you any favors in convincing anyone that your knowledge of these topics is anything close to approaching Will’s.
You didn’t mention me as a person included amongst your feminist critics, but I suspect many people reading this will assume I’m in there somewhere, possible because your t-shirt at TAM did directly call out my website and you’ve mentioned that incident specifically in your post. So, I figured I’d respond briefly because I’ve never really discussed it publicly and never talked with you about it at all.
When you made your “I am not a Skepchick” shirt, I did consider writing a blog post about it. Then I changed my mind and I composed an email to you in which I explained my feelings on the subject, since you seemed confused by the reaction you received. I pointed out that no one to my knowledge had ever called you a Skepchick, and I had never asked you to become a contributor to the network. I then used an analogy in which I pointed out that if a physician like Steve Novella went to the effort to create a CafePress shirt that read something like “I am not a SkepDoc. I am a skeptic,” you would be confused, a little hurt, and, when he wore it three days in a row, concerned for his personal hygiene. Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.
So I wrote the email, tinkered with it for a few days, and eventually I deleted it without sending. The reason was that after reflecting on it for so long, I came to the realization that while a week prior I held an immense amount of respect for you, I suddenly had lost that respect so completely that I had no interest in getting it back. I realized I was stressing out over someone who was so proud of an immature t-shirt she made that she wore it for an entire weekend. I realized that anyone who needs an explanation of why that was silly and hurtful doesn’t actually deserve an explanation, and they certainly don’t deserve real estate in my head. So I let others argue over it while I moved on to more interesting things.
I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.
So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.
Thank You. Awesome post Dr. Hall.
Also, those are precisely the reasons I have mostly stopped reading other “skeptical blogs”. They become too entangled in criticizing other skeptics simply to either generate more “views” or just for spite. They do not read what others write carefully and are quick to give their opinion.
One thing I’ve wondered, and I’ve discussed this with other psychiatrists, dentists and doctors at the clinic I work at; It’s amazing how we think we can multitask, when in truth, it decreases our productivity. We think we can read 3-4 articles at the same time, but while doing so, we miss the true point or the article. ADD is grossly misdiagnosed, and partly a cause of not having someone making sure your child sits at home doing his/her homework (if it weren’t for both my parents, someone would have definitely diagnosed me as having ADHD).
1000 years ago humans recited stories as long as the Iliad from memory. 10 years ago I knew all the phone numbers of ALL my friends and acquaintances (at least over 75) by memory. Now… I depend on my phone and speed dial. I only remember 5 or 6 crucial numbers.
Maybe we should stop, take a deep breath and reassess where we are. Because we sure as hell are moving fast, without a clear picture of where we are headed, and we are taking down everyone on our way. Even if they fight for the same cause.
I don’t know if what I said has anything to do with any of this…. but there you go. My mind wanders.
Hi Rebecca
So that’s the best you can do, is it? Presume that Dr Hall would be hurt if someone wore a ‘Not a SkepDoc’ t-shirt in her presence, and in doing so make crude and unnecessary references to her personal hygiene.
Pathetic.
You post is a perfect illustration of why Dr Hall is justified in making sure people know that she is not a skepchick.
Rebecca Watson said:
“I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.
So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.”
The condescension, ill-temper, and lack of grace packed into those few sentences resolves once and for all the issue of whether or not to pay further attention to you or this argument.
As I argued in my comment at neurologica, I think we need to take a step back and recognize that there is large body of scholarly work regarding gender studies and that we should defer to experts when our own knowledge in an area is deficient. That isn’t to say we can never comment of course, but just that we should tread carefully.
@Rebecca
I’ll just say I hope you reconsider one day.
I apologize to anyone who was offended by what I said about using the word “queer.” Unless the Internet and various dictionaries are lying to me, the word is still considered offensive by many people, although others have reclaimed it and embraced it. Is it fair to say that those outside the community should be cautious in applying the word until they have determined whether their interlocutor objects to it or not?
The word “queer” has two simultaneous meanings:
1. A self-descriptive word used (sometimes affectionately) by people who are not cis and/or straight.
2. A slur used against people who are not cis and/or straight by people who are cis and/or straight.
The latter usage is, in fact, considered offensive. However, broad leeway is generally given to people who are LGBT to use “queer” (both as a self-descriptor and to refer to others like themselves), because of how it has been reclaimed. However, people who are not LGBT using “queer” may be questioned, due to the second meaning.
@Rebecca Watson
You certainly know how to take all the pride out of defending you.
“I don’t care what is scientifically right or wrong if what you say is destroying the dignity, respect, rights and value of trans people. Reducing people to their genitals or chromosomes is doing just that.”
OK this is a skeptic issue, as well as an issue of wishing equality, but the above while probably just poorly worded is not a good skeptic response to an issue skeptics should be able to figure out. We think logically and scientifically.
The odd part is the emphasis on “You screwed up OLD LADY!” and how we are marginalized and not considered “with it” enough to play a part. Yet this is truly part of what feminism is supposed to be fighting, women being marginalized after they are over 30. When did, respecting people, explaining nicely (rather than DEMANDING an apology because hey, you just have not kept up with the lingo), and seeing we are stronger together rather than apart because a problem?
Ageism is quite the issue, but it is full steam ahead and we don’t care who we run over, at times. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Emotional responses, and easily hurt feelings, also do not make reaching a goal easier. Getting “side tracked” rather than “keep your eyes on the prize” is important.
Harriet obviously took a long time with this article. She went into detail. It is well written, it is magazine quality, it is probably “old school” in that sometimes blogging is all the emotion of the moment, and this article was not emotion but clarity of exactly how she feels. It has no swear words. It is in a word “professional”.
There are wonderful women writers out there, and whomever “will” is he/she does not represent the other viewpoint well. His felt a little too rushed. He also could talk to Harriet.
Maybe our generation had to face the barrier to our success of the excuse “we can’t hire women they are too emotional”. So we learned to chill a bit. We learned how to write a response. We learned to take time. There are fabulous, and indeed well trained skeptic women writers. I know that their audience likes a good curse and the fun of irony and sarcasm. But if this is truly important to us, and indeed it is to me, let’s follow the lead of other rights movements and figure out how we can each do our part with our abilities, and respect others. Pointing at a tshirt and flipping out is nothing compared to the still daily struggles of women in the skeptic world to be accepted fully.
I know my own experience has been one of having to “prove myself” with some articles I have written. It has been facing an old boys club not quite sure who this older women with boobs might be. What does SHE know? However, it’s other men, already there, helping me break down the barriers.
I know there is a woman on OWN (I know, it’s a wonderful world of woo on there), but she was counseling women that were getting their lives together, and it was sounding like some Real Housewives fighting going on. The therapist STOPPED IT and said “I will not let you dishonor your sister in that way!” She was trying to show these women were in a bad situation in their lives, partly because they did not see they needed their fellow woman and her wisdom and power, more than they needed to keep competing endlessly in the way society has taught us.
Also, I find feminist meetings and groups that refuse to have trans-gender speakers, or sometimes even allow trans-gender women to attend, disgraceful. It’s not about equality, or a fair playing field, for women, it’s about a fair field for all. Never again the “Give women the vote, as you gave it to black people.” and I refuse to go to any conference that does not give trans-genders a welcome.
I’m a 53-year-old atheist gay farmer. I loathe the term “queer” as applied to gays. Others who want to “embrace” the term are free to do so, but keep your “theory” to yourselves.
Dr. Hall, you owe no one an apology, but your doing so is a testament to your character.
@Rebecca
Interesting. I didn’t think that this post was about you at all, much less all about you.
@Harriett
I hope this is the last time you defend yourself to unwarranted and unreasonable criticism. I do think that it is sometimes a good idea to address these things, but the truth is that you could spend your life explaining, point-by-point, that these criticism are fallacious (mostly straw men, it seems).
I think that most of us can say with confidence that a post with lists and pleas will not result in more careful reading or civil discussion. And I think that you are mistaken that any of your goals and values are the same as your critics. We all claim that what we’re after is equality for women (and some of us note that we differ in what “equality” means or how to achieve it), but I question whether that is just means to a different end that has more to do with attention, respect, and “being right”.
Regarding sex differences themselves, your critics seem to want it both ways – there are differences, but there no differences? Or the only things that are different are things that nobody can say matter? It’s a bit confusing and, I find, an extremely shallow and self-serving approach. We certainly should not accept claims about anything, including sex differences, without strong evidence, but we all benefit from identifying those real differences and figuring out what they mean in terms of expected outcomes. And we all suffer when we ignore them or when scientific findings are reject outright because someone doesn’t like them or the way that they might be abused. That’s the creationists’ way.
Finally, the concept of “gender blindness” is, I think, central to the conflict over your T-shirt. I contend that anything other than gender blindness is a recipe for sexism.
Heh, I read this one first, then I read Dr. Hall’s second post of the day.
Sarcasm alert.
Yes, clearly Dr. Hall has no awareness of the many nuances of gender, sex and whatnot. Clearly she meant her post to offend.
To make another comment – it would be very, very helpful for everyone involved in the skeptical movement and really, all of life, to focus on ideas rather than people. Trying to paint Dr. Hall as a bad person because she has written ideas and opinions that you disagree with or are not sufficiently nuanced as someone who lives with, studies or has expertise in a particular gender, sexual, biological or any other identity seems to quite miss the point. A post about everything, covering every possible nuance on a topic, would be unreadable. Comments are immensely valuable for illustrating or pointing to those nuances. Webposts meant to be a relatively broad overview of a specific topic of necessity will not capture all naunces. A constructive discussion would point out areas and terminology that could be improved, and only point out areas of deliberate insult when it is obvious that insult was intended.
PZ Myers may be an insensitive jerk (to some), but his criticisms of religion and how it impacts science are, from a scientific perspective, both interesting and insightful. Dr. Hall may have “thoughtlessly” oversimplified (in this post, but then again there is of course this one) the myriad ways gender and sex distinctions can be complicated by biology, neurology, psychology and sociology, but made several factual statements in both posts that can be contested, admired or refined. Abbie Smith may have a terrible potty mouth and more seriously be a dog person (eeeeeww!!!!!) but her knowledge of and ability to discuss virology are excellent and her posts astonishingly interesting to a non-expert like me. Perhaps rather than attempting to cause hurt and offence at perhaps minor and tangential issues, we could instead admire the good parts and suggest improvements for the remainder. The idea that you must respect a person to respect their well-expressed, science-based ideas is, sadly, wrong. Our heroes will always disappoint us (Hello President Obama! Your science and defence policies kinda suck!) and our villains will probably always undertake some action that is in some way beneficial somewhere (thanks for making the trains run on time Benito!*) so why not make delicious cheese out of the valuable idea-curds and discard the distasteful whey?**
*two points – yes, Benito Mussolini probably didn’t make the trains run on time, and the exception to this rule is Hitler, who never did anything good the fucknuckle
**yes, whey is a valuable source of well-digested protein, but there’s only so far you can torture a metaphor before it becomes counter-productive. Also, this is unlikely because as part of our chimp-based heritage, we are in fact apes and as apes we are quite terrible at this. But we could, maybe, try it once in a while. Take a step back. Take a deep breath. Contest a fact, not a personality.
Really trying not to get sucked in but after reading Will’s article I wondered if both of us had read the same Harriet Hall piece. The bit about breast feeding in particular jumped out.
Being an adoptive parent (who did not breastfeeding) I am very sensitive to issues of breastfeeding and attachment or bonding. I would have commented if I thought there was any suggestion that breastfeeding resulted in better bonding* or if I felt stigmatized.
I thought it was pretty clear that “breast is best” reference was in regards to the content of breast milk versus formula, not at all bonding related.
*Interesting tidbit – in this context “bonding” refers to the emotional connection that the parent develops for their child whereas “attachment” refers to emotional connection that a child develops to their caregiver(s).
As to the difference between sex and gender. I’m sure that I have made many mistakes on this topic. I guess I have two choices. I can not talk about it…essentially closeting the topic, or I can accept that I will probably screw up. I hope that people will be generous and correct me kindly when I do.
I hope when people unknowingly step on my toes when discussing a topic that I am sensitive too, that I have the presence of mind to be generous to them and offer any needed correction gently.
But hey, everyone has bad days, sometimes I’m more snappy than needed. I also try to understand that happens with others. It seems like we should be able to get along with most people who are not habitually mean spirited.
*Interesting tidbit – in this context “bonding” refers to the emotional connection that the parent develops for their child whereas “attachment” refers to emotional connection that a child develops to their caregiver(s).
whoops sorry for the redundant asterisk error
I missed this until just now. I had always heard that the “q” stood for “questioning”, I didn’t know that it also could stand for “queer”. Thanks for informing me. Note that Armstrsong, 2002 and Blasius, 2001 apparently indicate this is perceived particularly among older homosexuals to be pejorative, insulting or hurtful, so perhaps be careful in its use.
The wikipedia article for LGBT also includes “I” for “intersex”, which seems a valuable addition, and in India they add an “H” for “hijra”, the “third gender” found in some subcultures (though I believe similar subcultures exist; Nepal’s Supreme Court has apparently officially recognized “other” as a gender, Thailand has the kathoey, Oman has the Xanith and there’s lots more “third gender” forms throughout the world). “T” may also stand for “two-spirited”, or “transvestite”. “A” may be added to incorporate “assexual” or “allies”. “P” may be “pansexual” or “polyamorous”. “H” could also be “HIV-infected”. “F” for “fetish”. “B” for “BDSM”. “MSM” for “men who have sex with men” but prefer not to adopt a label. “C” for “curious”. Black/African American homosexuals prefer “same gender loving”, apparently because they believe the LGBCTBQHTAHPHITP to be too white-dominated.
Truly, the gender and sexuality practices of humans are a heroic thing, and one that defies easy categorization.
Sometimes I find what you post to be pretty abrasive, but overall (as a feminist myself) I think you have a very genuine concern for the health and safety of others and want to blasphemize quacks to the point of discrediting them. I’m a fairy decent critical thinker (and a science student) so I can wade through what you say, look at the actual research, and weigh it against the “quacks” themselves and come to my own conclusions (which is, generally, on course with what you have posted.) I can see how people with less-than-flexible minds and very deep convictions could be oppositional to your writing and see you as coming down on women especially for being ignorant to scientific reasoning. The way I actually discovered your blog post was when I had to research for a women’s studies project on homebirthing. It was funny, because I was the one girl in my group who didn’t hold some naturalistic fallacy that homebirthing was the end-all-be-all of “perfect motherhood,” but I was also very put off by your broad-sweeping condemnation of the practice. It took me a while, but after hearing from so many rabid HB enthusiasts (including one girl who insisted that she give birth to her child in a dolphin tank because “the dolphin midwives knew best” :S) I kind of understood why you were so adamantly against it. Personally, I plan on having my children at home if it is possible, but I am under no impression that my pregnancy will require zero monitoring or that my body is “full of ancient wisdom, and will know what to do.” The homebirthing midwives in my province are trained at the top university (UBC) and get a full medical education, except it is concentrated entirely on caring for pregnant women and delivering babies in and outside of a hospital. My decision is based on my personal comfort level and beliefs, but my personal comfort would be thrown out the window if I was told point-blank that my pregnancy will require medical intervention. If I didn’t live in a city and have access to hospital care immediately, I probably wouldn’t plan on having a homebirth because I wouldn’t want to be stuck in the middle of nowhere with a pregnancy complication. No, I’m actually studying the hell out of obstetrics material so I can gauge the safety of my decision. Those who blindly believe that “hospitals are evil” and “women know best” see your view as an attack on women themselves, not the naturalistic fallacy that *some* women fall prey to. Personally, I appreciate you calling out the selfishness and narcissism that too often is associated with something that should be about health and wellbeing.
So, that’s just my perspective, as a feminist AND someone who disagrees with you about something, but is still a fan of your work
@WLU
Hear, hear!!!
And this made me laugh out loud:
” Also, this is unlikely because as part of our chimp-based heritage, we are in fact apes and as apes we are quite terrible at this.”
It engendered a mental image of certain correspondents jumping up and down, teeth bared, shrieking and throwing feces. I will carry this image with me and refer to it when noisome and petty characters pollute a conversation with inanities.
I have always understood ”queer” to be a [disparaging] term for a homosexual person. “Feminism” seems to have its own special jargon.
Movements like Scientology have their their own specialist jargon. I see some strains of “feminism” as equally opaque with respect to their vocabulary.
Redefining existing words is problematic.
To all of those commenters saying “she didn’t mean to be offensive” or “you need to calm down if we are to take you seriously” y’all need to read some Derailing 101!
“She didn’t mean to be offensive” – Intent doesn’t matter. Thinking that someone’s well wishes can alter the outcome of their behavior is like a reverse-ad-hominem. You can be the nicest most generous bigot in the world, and it wouldn’t change the bigot part. What she said is damaging to non-binary individuals. It is cissexist. Her ignorance or well-wishes won’t change that.
“You need to calm down if we are to take you seriously” – my tone doesn’t need policing, thanks. I am allowed to be as angry as I want to be. It doesn’t change the content of my arguments. Tone policing is one of the most common forms of silencing minorities. Be careful who you tell to calm down, its almost always condescending and minimizing.
I would like to suggest that some blog articles are deliberately inflammatory to attract blog hits, and advertising revenue. A technique to increase blog hits is by making the comments section a war zone.
I recall that Mr Davis (CFI DC) was jubilant because the FTB hits were greater than the RDFRS.
I would implore everyone to consider the use of browser plugs that prevent advert impressions and analytics.
In addition to the cynical use of drama, I fear that some people have been gradually indoctrinated. A once erudite podcast cohost appears to now be a completely different person.
@Rebecca — I am a fan of yours and a regular visitor (but very infrequent poster) on skepchick. I really enjoyed your description of the email you prepared to send to Dr. Hall, as it sounds very thoughtful, reasoned, and appropriately critical of one of Dr. Hall’s actions. It seems to me that it was a shame that you deleted it, and perhaps an opportunity to build understanding on both sides was lost. Maybe nothing would have come of it, but at least you would know that you gave it a chance.
In contrast, I’m not sure that a drive-by, dismissive comment intended to demean Dr. Hall in front of her readers was nearly as well-thought out. What is done, is done, but I’m not sure how this advances your skeptical or feminist aims in any beneficial way.
@audpicc, you are correct that intent doesn’t change the quality of an argument but it can certainly help to clear up misunderstandings due to ambiguous language.
About tone policing…you have a right to use whatever tone you want, but personally I try to limit my tone because when strong emotion drives writing it makes it harder to be objective.
” Be careful who you tell to calm down, its almost always condescending and minimizing.”
Calm down. I say that not because you are a self identified queer. I couldn’t care less about the state of your genitalia or genetics, nor about your proclivities.
I say it because of this:
“It doesn’t change the content of my arguments.”
You are being argumentative in the sense of being disputatious but you have not mounted an argument in any meaningful sense.
A common slur used by “feminists” against critics is to stigmatise obsession. Both myself and Sara Mayhew have been called obsessive because we use evidence to back up our assertions.
Sara Mayhew produced screen shots (and only when pressed, after several months of misinformation).
I use the Twitter and Storify API to capture conversations. The “feminists” hate this because tweets still persist in Storify entries, even when deleted. I have a deep passion for the truth and showing people when they’re wrong. Using evidence. I may be on the autistic spectrum — that is neither here nor there. To imply that I danger – from my bedroom in Europe – is absurd.
I will never apologise for, or feel ashamed of being “obsessed”.
Do you know if Will is queer or not? Because you seem to be assuming he is outside the community, which as far as I can tell is not necessarily the case.
Why do you place Will’s name in scare-quotes? Is he not allowed to be seriously identified using the name he has made available online? Or are you “Harriet Hall”?
It isn’t “political correctness” or “feminist political correctness,” it’s just correctness. Period. Saying things more accurately may seem inelegant to you, but I find that skeptics in general admire accuracy. Saying that the fact that women menstruate, get pregnant, and lactate is an example of a “real difference” between men and women was simply incorrect and inaccurate. The fact that it more elegantly supported your point than a factually correct statement should not shield you from criticism for getting those facts wrong.
@audpicc “What she said is damaging to non-binary individuals. It is cissexist.”
Just because your feelings may have been hurt, mainly due to your deciding to take offence based on your unreasonable demand that everyone must be fluent in your particular jargon, it is overstating the case to call it damaging. What, apart from your hurt feelings, was actually damaged?
I do understand that some individuals are unable to deal with normal life and demand special privileges and safe spaces, but when they venture to the scary outside world, they just have to take their chances like the rest of us.
@Panthera, I don’t think you are in a position to judge other people’s needs.
@panthera spelaea
I’m not being too sensitive when I say cissexism creates real harm. Trans women are more likely than any other sexual minority to be unemployed, assaulted and murdered. This is not due to some fraction of the heterosexual cis population that are criminals – this is due to a system of oppression towards gender-non-conforming people. To use language that further identifies trans people as “other” and to take away their identities by not addressing them or to reduce them to a set of genitals or chromosomes is violence against trans people. Women are getting murdered because cis people can’t get over the fact that some women have penises or ask for pronouns that are outside their small worldview. So don’t tell me that I’ve “decided to take offence”. It is not an unreasonable demand that everyone be regarded with respect and digntity. The way to strip a trans person of respect and dignity is cissexism – which is run rampant all over Dr. Hall’s articles.
When it comes down to it, I look at what the person has done.
Dr. Hall actually broke down walls, removed obstacles and led the way in a group, The USAF, and a time, the 1970s and 1980s, when simply being a woman in her line of work was newsworthy. She did these things the way, I would hope, most of us would want to lead the way: working hard, doing good work, and showing by her work that the reasons given for denying various positions in the military were clearly incorrect.
She did not sit on the sidelines and demand others change to suit her. She changed things. Women like, her, the class of 77-08, Col. Sally Murphy, Dr. Sally Ride, they didn’t just talk about changing institutions that were as patriarchal as could be. They went out and actually changed them. That’s still happening.
The thing is, the women breaking barriers today don’t make the news. They aren’t all over blogs, or what have you. They’re too busy doing their work. They don’t just blog about change, they don’t just fly between conferences to lecture about change. They actually do stuff. They’re everywhere. A friend of mine was just made a researcher at VMware. That’s not notable except she’s the first woman to hold that job at VMware. Not an earth-shattering accomplishment, but important to the women who follow her.
Even if I disagreed with anything Dr. Hall has said here, and I don’t, my respect for what she has actually done would be unchanged. The fact I disagree with her on one issue, or even many issues doesn’t erase her, or anyone’s accomplishments.
How people view feminism is not “Highlander”. There can be more than one “right” answer. The fact that Dr. Hall’s views or my views or Barbara Drescher’s views or Rebecca Watson’s views on feminism don’t perfectly and completely align do not make *any* of us inherently wrong OR right. It makes us different people with different views.
Someone disagreeing with me, especially on a topic like feminism which has, by any objective measure, a *wide* range of definitions and adherents, doesn’t create some “TWO ENTER, ONE LEAVES” situation. It does mean that I may have to deflate my ego a bit and allow for the fact that I am not the sole possessor of the “correct” POV on feminism, but I’m fine with that. I live on a planet with billions of people, most of whom are probably smarter than me. I long ago let go of the notion that I’m all that special, much less irreplaceable.
It is this…mutation of thought, this destruction of an allowance that different opinions and points of view can all live harmoniously with each other that is behind the silliness we see here. O NOES, HARRIET HALL DOESN’T AGREE WITH ME, ATAAAAAAACK!!!! It’s childish, and it’s silly, and if you’re old enough to type vaguely coherent english, you’re to old to have that kind of thinking guide your life. I’ve disagreed with Barbara Drescher about stuff in the past, doesn’t mean i think she’s a bad person. We just didn’t agree on a point. Big deal. I’m sure that Dr. Hall may have some very odd ideas about what the best bomber the Air Force fielded was, (B-52 people, yeesh), doesn’t mean I’m going to dismiss her.
Disagreement does not require demonization.
Steven Novella wrote:
This! This times ten raised to a power that gives it enough voice so that even mice and rats understand it.
Before a person engages in an argument with another person I think it very wise to remember that the other person -is- a person, pretty much like you, with thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas and opinions. One of my favorite t-shirts has the slogan “We are Each Other.” I think that true from a genetic, social and psychological perspective.
I’ll add one thing, the most uncharitable thing I see, in the attacks on Dr. Hall. I think one of her great strengths as a writer is her brevity and concision. It is obvious to me that when I read one of her posts that a lot of thought has gone into it and that she has distilled things into a clean, cogent set of paragraphs. She brooks no fluff.
A person applying Dr. Novella’s wise words would, if they didn’t understand something she wrote, would simply ask about it. A simple question to find out the answer.
In stark contrast, the uncharitable ones take that brevity and concision as an opportunity to insert whatever it is they either want to see or think they see, neither of which is there. As Dr. Hall asks “Please read what I say, not what you choose to imagine I meant to say.” Indeed so. That is the intellectually honest thing to do: see what is there, actually there, as best you can, and if you don’t understand something then ASK a question, don’t assume or use that unknown space as a place to shovel in your own…stuff.
Parenthetically, even if I was regularly uncharitable and often given to spouting off, I’d be rather careful about what I said to someone who could pilot a B-52 bomber over my house.
Josh and April express their disagreement with the notion that Balkanisation is not a great thing.
Josh expresses his displeasure that Harriet isn’t au fait with the vernacular of a tiny sub-culture.
I am not qualified to judge this subject matter. I am qualified to judge the quality of Will’s writing and rhetoric, and I think it’s terrible: his article is tedious, shrill, and so laced with hyperbolic straw men that it really has nothing at all to do with Dr. Hall. His rudeness drowns out his point, whatever its merits.
The most useful comment I’ve noticed here today is Dr. Novella’s:
“My problem with so many of the exchanges that are fueling internal strife is that they are maximally uncharitable to the target of their criticism. This is very counterproductive.”
@audipicc
This is what you took offence at, right? Correct me if I’m wrong: “He wants to dictate how I use language, yet he uses the word queer, a term most people in the LGBT community consider offensive.”
Somehow you see that as evidence of “cissexim” – I wish people would stop inventing neologisms, it makes communication very difficult – even when the term is controversial. While it has been re-appropriated to a degree in the 1990′s from its use as an anti-gay epithet, some LGBT people disapprove of using queer as a catch-all because they consider it offensive, derisive or self-deprecating because of its continuous use as hate speech. Other LGBT people avoid queer because they associate it with political radicalism, or simply because they perceive it as the faddish slang of a “younger generation.” So if a LGBT person told you not to call them queer, you’d assume they were being “cissexist” – whatever that may be – at you? Right. This is what I mean by your unreasonable demand that everyone is fluent in your particular jargon – and does not object to it as offensive. May I also ask who appointed you as the arbiter of correct language?
Nobody is saying that prejudice can be horrible and violent towards LGBT people, but accusing Harriet Hall of LGBT-phobia based on her understanding of the term queer, a term even some LGBT people strongly disapprove is either mendacious or disingenuous. Or then you’re just making an unreasonable demand that everyone must use language in the precise meaning you have decided it must have.
Yes, it does, if you refuse to look up words whose definitions you do not know. If you had looked it up, you would have been able to figure out that that’s not what the term refers to. So the rest of your comment is a non-sequitur.
Also, do you want us to simply freeze language as-is now? Because every word you use right now was once….wait for it…..a neologism. Cis is a term that was invented to fill a lexical gap. It just means not trans (etymologically consistent with Latin, btw, so in another sense it is the exact opposite of a neologism
)
@alephsquared
As you might infer from my name, I’m familiar with Latin, and can get the gist of the term. In my understanding it would mean heterosexual sexism. I just refuse to play word games.
It’s obvious you did not bother reading the rest of my post. How about doing so now, or were you just looking for an excuse to dismiss it based on my refusal to pander to jargonauts?
Of course I know languages change over the years, meanings of words change and new words are invented all the time. None of these changes are binding on anyone, and before a word becomes universally accepted, I don’t need to use it. Not even after that, if I don’t so choose.
@audpicc
” To use language that further identifies trans people as “other” and to take away their identities by not addressing them or to reduce them to a set of genitals or chromosomes is violence against trans people.”
Isn’t identifying trans people as “other” precisely what you are doing by insisting on special words to define them? People are who they are, their identities aren’t created from labels. You may see yourself as a ‘trans person’. Fine and dandy but a little self limiting. Most rational people would see you as whatever else you are: a software engineer who gardens and reads Wordsworth.
You see, the identity issues that so obsess you are of only passing interest to anyone other than close friends and the “fraction of the heterosexual cis population that are criminals” whom you oddly claim are not the actual problem. The rest of us, generally speaking, really don’t care. Do you do your job? Are you a contributing member of your community? Do you take your garbage to the curb on collection day? These are the matters of general interest, not whatever is going on in your underwear.
If you want to engage in conversation with people and do not understand a word used, you can either look up the meaning of the words they use or consistently misinterpret what they say. If you don’t want to engage, don’t.
As I said, cis means not trans. Trans refers to gender identity, not sexual orientation, thus, so does cis. So “heterosexual sexism” is an incorrect interpretation off the bat: heterosexual refers to sexual orientation, cis refers to gender identity. There can be hetersexual cis people and heterosexual trans people and all sorts of combinations.
I’m not trying to say there’s anything wrong with not knowing words or not being familiar with new words, just with assuming interpretations without any clear reason. The reason I didn’t respond to the rest of your comment is because it was going off of an incorrect assumption as to what “cissexism” was referring to, and was therefore, as I said, a non-sequitur when it comes to discussion of whether or not Hall’s piece was cissexist. Cissexism is:
It has nothing to do with Hall’s understanding of the word queer whatsoever, rather, her insistence that statements like, “women menstruate” are accurate, when, in fact, they are not.
@windriven
I hope I was one of them, I’ve thrown feces with the best/worst. To aid your mental image, I am 5’11″, have 32-inch biceps a complete six-pack and a 28-inch waist. Both my legs are cybernetic enhancements and my left eye is a a 6-petawatt laser. It makes me tired when I fire it. I fly using a cheeseburger-fueled biojetpack. Also, I don’t actually have genitals, I reproduce by budding.
@audpicc
May I suggest you examine your own conduct. May I also suggest that, if you haven’t, you read Dr. Hall’s other post today, where she identifies numerous types of biological, psychological and cultural distinctions within sex and gender. Perhaps your comments on what is missing might be better placed over there.
Intent may not matter to you, it matters to me. For example, your intent appears to be that of belittling and insulting Dr. Hall. Certainly it makes me take your message less seriously. Where you see bigotry, I see conciseness. In fact, you are projecting bigotry – that by not mentioning what you consider to be the most important part of sex, gender and identity discussions, that means Dr. Hall opposes the rights of the transgendered and supports their minimalization. You can raise the flag and thus raise awareness without belittling and (more importantly) without alienating. Think about it – for some people this may be the sole interaction they’ve ever had with someone promoting the transgendered/transsexual community. Your insulting demands and insistence on assuming malice paints all future interactions – from now on any transgendered/transsexual person will be “nice, not like that idiot form the SBM comments section” or “wow, they are just like that idiot from the SBM comments section”. Given the human propensity for confirmation bias, you’ve just set up a large number of readers to be predisposed to thing negatively of a community that already has it hard enoug. Fred Phelps needs rage and protests. I don’t think most of the people here do.
Absolutely, you can be as angry as you want. You’ll just be discounted as crazy, disturbed, unpleasant or irrational. Nobody wants to silence you. I’d happily listen to some of the difficulties you are aware of, or some categories missing from this or the other post. You’re choosing to rant all over an engaged audience instead. You have people who are interested in content, but you are not giving them any. Please, talk to us. Help us understand why you are angry. Just don’t be angry while you’re doing it.
Agreed.
Exaggeration. In fact, insisting that a transperson be described in a specific way (your way) seems rather questionable. Your comment also implies that a transperson’s identity is solely that of “a transperson”. That they have no other interests, experiences or identities. That they can’t also be engineers, musicians, mothers, fathers, children, taxi passengers and someone eating breakfast in a diner. Certainly, trans people are “different” (in the trivial sense that all people are “different” and in the more meaningful sense that they are a significant minority that deviates from norms). The ideal world isn’t one where we adopt a box-ticking approach to diversity, including one of each of the following (black, white, disabled, asian, homosexual, heterosexual, transgendered, robot, coma patient, philanderer), it is one in which a person’s words and behaviour matter more than the groups they belong to. A world where I can be indifferent to a person’s transsexual status becaus they have equal rights and respect under the law and ideally within civil discourse. Failing to adopt your preferred terminology (which, I point out, missses several kinds of gender/sexual subgroups and several threads of feelings about the term “queer”) is not violence.
I’m not seeing what language identifies “trans” people as “other”. Could you provide me with a brief quote? Again, your emotional rhetoric is preventing me from seeing your substantive point.
It’s not an unreasonable demand that everybody be regarded with respect. You’re not asking for that. You’re demanding that Dr. Hall and everybody else here adopt and respect your preferred terminology, despite the fact that a) it offends some b) it’s incomplete c) not universally recognized as the preferred terminology by all within the group and d) within that group it is extremely unlikely the entire group will ever prefer or settle on a single group. Your insistence on a single term obscures diversity, of biological fact, of gender and of opinion. Not to mention, you’re reducing the chance of transsexuals being regarded with respect and dignity because you’re making it easier to discount your points as concern trolling and irrational ranting.
I’m the kind of person who needs to be correct and feel superior, and will throw being effective or edifying out the window to obtain those ends, even to the point of insulting my allies on occasion.
I think its a flaw though, and am trying to work on it. Got little sticky notes to remind me.
@willLawrence, Can you respect the fact that gender and sexuality studies has developed terminology and that it is appropriate to use the correct terms when referring to this field just as it would be to use the correct terms if referring to any other field?
Harriet,
Anyone who gets offended by the use of a word without even considering the context or the intent of the use, is wrong to get offended, and thus, you really shouldn’t care about these people, nor be apologizing to them.
These types take more offence on the behalf of others, than the persons that could have “legitimately” taken offence would have.
In these cases there is rarely any real reason for anyone to take offence. In reality the “take offence” subject is more a ploy to make the opponent look and feel bad/get defensive, and derail the discussion, than a legitimate subject for discussion.
I really liked your post, Dr. Hall. I have read your book and am well aware of what you went through in your career to get to where you are today. And I’m heartily sick of the squabbling that’s going on in the community, along with the pettiness and the two-year-old sandbox “you can’t be my friend if you’re friends with her” mentality.
At first I was amused at the finer and finer mesh that people use to strain your posts through, looking for tiny and tiny bits to use as ammo. And then I was disgusted. And then really angry. It takes a lot to make me angry enough to want to rant at someone.
You are obviously just not young, hip, thin, cute, clever, or hard-drinking enough to be popular, and your experiences aren’t worthy. You aren’t even very smart (regardless of that medical degree you seem so proud of). I’m in the same boat. My advanced age means that my STEM degree, my years of working in a industry that is less than 5% female, and managing to rise to the top and earn a 6-figure salary, a company car, availability of a private jet, and bonuses more than most people’s salaries, means I also do not know a damn thing about what women have to struggle with to succeed in any business, must less a good-old-boy one. Having professors tell me that I was taking a slot away from a man, who MIGHT HAVE TO SUPPORT A FAMILY, wasn’t harassment or life-changing. (I spend all my salary on trivial things, apparently.) And since I’m no longer young, hip, thin, cute, clever, or hard-driking enough to be hit on in bars, I don’t understand the harassment that women face. Sometimes, when some of us state that we do not feel unsafe, or haven’t been harassed at a conference, not only are we accusing women of making it it, or exaggerating, etc., I hear the unspoken words “Of course YOU haven’t been harassed or attacked. Because you are not young, hip, thing, cute, etc.” Yep, I was told this. The ugly unspoken little secret among some women.
I’ve had it. Who am I? In the skeptical community, I’m nobody. I don’t speak, I don’t write. I’m busy running a business. A real one, that makes money, employs people, pays (a lot) of taxes. The only thing I do is write checks to support others in the skeptical community. I quit doing that last year. No one gives a crap what I think, and that’s just fine with me.
A couple years ago, via Twitter, I responded to someone about a group not being inclusive, and used as example something along the lines of “Such as the Skepchicks not representing older women.” That’s a paraphrase. I didn’t think anything of it, until that evening, my fellow Houston Skeptics founder and part-time writer for the skepchick.org blog, Sam, called my cell phone and asked me “what the hell did you do to piss off the Skephicks?” I had no idea, but apparently I was being shredded for my remarks that were being taken as criticism. WTF When I got home, I tried to look up what was going on, and saw comments like “People hate us because we’re so accomplished”. Okaaaaay. Whatever.
I took one of the two pictures that were widely circulated of you, Dr. Hall. I am distressed that it caused you so much grief, but I still think it was a great shirt. The first use of skepchick is NOT from the blogger site Skepchick.org. I found one here – 1999.
http://www.magicdave.com/sccal/skepchicks.htm. Like it or not, the term is not copyrighted or original to Rebecca, so when she assumes that it was an attack on her, or on the various other come-and-go bloggers on that site, she is wrong. But, apparently, one is free to ascribe motives on other people, the proven inability of mind-reading to actually work be damned. What a hateful, snarky comment she wrote above. Makes me want to chastise Rebecca for vomiting so much, after nights of drinking, in her shared cabin on that cruise that her roomie had to help clean both the room and Rebecca, and paid the cabin attendant extra tips out of her own pocket for his trouble. Because, you know, that would be MEAN and spiteful. And belittling people because you disagree with them isn’t intelligent, or respectful, or professional.
_____________
I looked back over this, and have picked several trigger points that I predict people will jump on. *shrugs*
…including several typos, I see. Bifocals also make you unworthy.
This thread is getting very confusing. Is the claim now that Harriet Hall is promulgating violence against transgender people because she said that women menstruate? I’m sorry, I don’t get it. Really, I have absolutely nothing against transgender folks, and would like for them to have the same opportunity for happiness as everyone. Could someone explain this in a clear way without all the heat…
I mean clearly she wasn’t saying you need to menstrate to be a women…I can’t imagine her thinking that
“Is the claim now that Harriet Hall is promulgating violence against transgender people because she said that women menstruate?”
lol!
I am confused, too. It seems to me the claim is now that t-shirts with non-copyrighted sayings on them violate feminist principles, are a refuge of dubious acronyms, and that Dr. Hall may be a secret cisgenderphobictransexualdenyingpilotwoman who clearly hates non-neutered puppies.
Well, mark me down as having changed my mind. Halfway through Harriet Hall’s post, I was thinking “one sure difference between men and women is that if a man had written what she wrote, one of the skepchicks would probably find a reason to call him a rapist.” But with references to racism, patriarchy, and murder flying about, I am starting to see how blurry the lines can get.
This is an appeal to not feel compelled to get sucked into the quagmire by Internet micro-celebs with emotional challenges. They have a toxic mutual admiration society that hopefully has a short half life. Please keep calm and carry on….
There is a lot of equivocating about that t-shirt. While Rebecca didn’t invent the word “Skepchick,” that site arguably as staked out the common usage ground among the skeptical community. And I think that t-shirt is basically the starting point for this current round.
Regardless of how you feel about Rebecca’s response above, I think it’s easy to understand why she and the rest of the Skepchicks would feel defensive and offended by Dr. Hall’s decision to wear it throughout TAM. Given that there was an on-going dust-up about sexual harassment at skeptics conferences at the time, and the Skepchick group was visibly part of it, the casual observer would have to do some mental gymnastics to find a message OTHER than “I stand in opposition to that group.” (If Harriet ever said she had a different message, my apologies. I missed it.)
Of course, that’s fine. If Harriet felt it was necessary to be sure that no one assumed she agreed with the Skepchicks, that’s totally her call. From the Skepchicks’ POV, it likely looked like a passive-aggressive attack from an unexpected quarter. Whatever else you believe about the bloggers there, they and their regular commenters are a tight-knit bunch.
You might not think their reactions are reasonable or warranted. But from where they sit, their defensiveness is not without cause.
(All my opinions. I certainly don’t speak for the Skepchicks.)
Yep. Now, why could that be, Rebecca?
Harriet was not confused, Rebecca. The Skepchicks and Surly Amy were the ones who were confused. It was the Skepchicks and Surly Amy who could not get their heads around the notion that Harriet had the shere audacity to wear a T-shirt that proudly boasted of her opposition to the shit-flinging the Skepchicks, Pharyngulites, and other bullies were producing before and during TAM2012. It was a little bit of pushback, and as well all know, Rebecca doesn’t like pushback, for she is above criticism, and thou shalt not make fun of the Skepchicks! That was the confusion – that a woman (or is that a “sister punisher”) stood up to your lot. Harriet got a lot of support that day. The majority spoke!
Rebecca, you totally misunderstood Harriet’s intention. Only a really stupid person could believe Harriet wore in response to not being a contributor to your network. Harriet wore it in response to a campaign of harassment and bullying towards DJ Grothe and TAM, where a small minority of the skeptic/atheist community attempted to speak on behalf on everybody else, and then presumed that any woman (or “gender traitor” as you call them) that disagreed was somehow part of the problem. Harriet wore that T-shirt to show her support for DJ Grothe and TAM. For that, she received a lot of support. You didn’t like that. Tough!
No, Harriet would not be confused by it, because that is a silly analogy. BTW, I get concerned about the “personal hygiene” of people who spend all day and night drinking at the bar, until around 4AM, etc.
Your hurt feelings were because another woman had the temerity to distance herself from your bullying and harassment of Grothe. The fact that you claim to have received death threats, etc. from “skeptics” (which skeptics?) DOES NOT make you immune to criticism and ridicule from others, including skeptics in the community. Dawkins has to put up with criticism, and so do you. It is called pushback. Get used to it.
My heart bleeds Rebecca. I presume you lost even more respect for Greg Laden after he sent threats of violence to somebody. Far worse than wearing a T-shirt, which you describe as immature.
I like the use of the term “immature”, since it comes from someone who sends ASCII “penisbirds” via email. Any accusation of immaturity from the Skepchicks and FTB crowd will simply be laughed at by the greater community. Rebecca has spent the last 2 years throwing her toys out of the pram, and then calls other people “immature”. No wonder the wider atheist/skeptic community has lost all respect for her.
Yeah, because the Skepchick agenda should be sooooooo apparant to everybody. Just a pity that the winer community rejects it, isn’t it Rebecca?
Really? Like what?
Oooooh. You go girl. That infamous Rebecca snark comes out at last. The sad thing is, a LOT of people do think of you Rebecca, but sadly from your POV, it is in negative terms.
That’s OK Rebecca. We think of you as being ill-informed on everything.
Yes, of course. Go and draw a “penisbird”, or something.
The short answer: no.
The long answer: recall this from Hall’s last article
Most, if not all, of these statements are blatantly false if one takes trans* people into account. There are men with “chest bumps”, women with “dangly bits”, men who menstruate/get pregnant/lactate, women who can grow beards, etc. etc.
Now it is possible Hall is completely ignorant of the existence of trans* people, but given her medical training and skeptical creds, I doubt it. Which indicates that she felt it was unnecessary to insert any qualifiers into her above statements to acknowledge the fact that, while these can be, in general, distinctions between male bodies and female bodies,* they are not “real differences” between men and women (or not all men and all women.)
Hall obviously has the right to choose to avoid explicitly acknowledging the existence of trans* people and trans* bodies which are counterexamples to her claims. But the criticism in response is hardly over-the-top PC-policing, merely the request that (hey, we’re all skeptics here, I believe) she try to be more accurate, precise, and correct in her statements in the future.
A minor correction to my post above:
It is equally important to note the converse: there are men without dangly bits, women without chest bumps, women who do not menstruate/get pregnant/lactate, men who cannot grow beards, etc.
The inaccuracy in her original statement goes both directions.
By which you mean that Hall is correct and that there are exceptions that do not disprove that there are general difference between men and women.
Hall did not say general differences, she said real differences. So no, she is not correct.
The things she cited can be differences between some men and some women, even possibly most men and most women, but they are not “real differences between men and women” (no qualifiers.)
What she said, as she said it, is not true. It is not good science. I’m not trying to say she’s a transphobe because I do not believe that. I’m trying to say that she was imprecise in her generalizations resulting in an all-too-typical rhetorical erasure of trans* people (or even cis people, as there are cis men and women who do not fulfill certain aspects of her categorization.)
Men and women are general terms to begin with. Your objection might be valid about an academic paper on transgender issues or some such, but to expect all the parenthetical precision you suggest in a more general setting is, I think, overmuch.
@alephsquared – Thanks for your response I appreciate your taking the time. I guess I am still not getting you. I didn’t take the statement you quoted as being a rule for defining sex, only a sketch of the average physiology of human’s sex/gender*.
If you wrote “Ears are extraordinary organs. They pick up all the sounds around you and then translate this information into a form your brain can understand**.” Should I complain that avoids explicitly acknowledging the existence of deaf people?
*To be honest, I don’t quite get the appropriate use of these terms…to I’ll probably just combine them until I get it.
**quoted how stuff works website.
Oh sorry, looks like your response to Skeptic (which hadn’t come up yet) might be applicable to my response to.
The thing is, trans* people do not live their lives on the pages of academic papers on trans* issues — papers typically written, incidentally, by cis people. (I’m using the asterisk as shorthand, just so you know, since not all trans* people are transgender). Why is it so important to you that we not point out when our existence in the real world is dismissed or not acknowledged in a post about gender and/or sex in the real world? Like, seriously, what is so wrong about me pointing out that Hall saying “men have penises” (oops, sorry, dangly bits) is incorrect? And why is it so difficult for her, and for people defending that section of her post, to simply say, “yeah, y’know what? you’re right. That part of the post was wrong.”
I really don’t think this is going too far overboard.
Sorry Mouse, that is blatantly not scientific and inaccurate. Certainly not skeptical of you. After all the upper limit of human hearing is in the 20kHz range so obviously not all sounds can be picked up and translated into a form your brain can understand.
I myself am a 29 year old man (wait, male? cis-male? I don’t think I’m a tran-male, though since I am out of shape after a year of intense medical study and too much food I certainly have some unsightly bumps on my chest) who cannot grow a beard. I get the awful neck-beard thing and a lately a bit of a pencil mustache. But I can literally go days without shaving and nobody would be the wiser. So therefore I am deeply offended at Dr. Hall’s thoroughly unscientific statement.
I would also like to object to the fact that Dr. Hall failed to mention or account for the fact that some of our cetacean friends, as fellow co-habitant mammals on this planet, do not have easily recognizeable primary sexual characteristics (they are housed internally when “at rest”) and possess no secondary sexual characteristics at all. The term “dangly bits” is especially hurtful to them for this reason.
@mousethatroared here:
If you don’t mind, may I answer your question with a question? If you wrote that somewhere and some deaf people responded saying that they’d been hurt, would you dismiss their concerns or would you say, “hey, y’know what, didn’t think it was a problem, maybe still not sure it is all that bad, but sure, let me amend my statement”?
It’s called the principle of charity alephsquared.
I would expect a rational and skeptical deaf person to say, “well clearly she missed us but that wasn’t the intent nor the purpose, so despite my initial reaction being one of insult I am enough of a thinking person to get over it and not make a boondoggle of it”
Yes, I can, but I can also appreciate that those terms may not be acceptable to all people who would be labelled by them. Human behaviour and sexuality isn’t chemistry, bacteria don’t blush but people do. People are reactive, so a term that is acceptable for one group won’t work for another (vis. “queer”). The “third sex” distinctions are not universally acceptable. A xanith would not want to be called a hijra, and the two do not occupy the same “niches” within their cultures (because their cultures are different). Not to mention, nonspecialists (like myself) may not be familiar with them. Were I referred to a set of terms that were universally acceptable, I would use them. I don’t think that is the case yet. And if I’m haughtily told I’m wrong and that there is one proper term to use, when it is manifestly not true, I am prone to dislike the messenger.
Have you read Dr. Hall’s other post from today?
Her original statements are correct for the majority of whatever your definition of male, female, man and woman, the norms (really modes) that transpeople differentiate from. I made note of some of these factors in a comment. You really have no idea whether Dr. Hall “chose to avid explicitly acknowledging the existence of trans people”. You could ask, rather than assuming it was a deliberate slight. You could have assumed it was part of the inherent blindness of most of society to these often invisible minorities.
The bottom line is – you are choosing to see it as an insult to be reflected back rather than a teachable moment for all of SBM’s readers. It really wasn’t a “request”, it was a demand accompanied by an insult, meant to demean and hurt. I’m sure it makes the insult-hurler feel better, I’m sure it makes them feel like a righteous warrior striking a blow for justice, I’m equally sure that it makes people less sympathetic to the righteousness of the cause. People are not purely rational, emotion makes a difference, and by trying to make Dr. Hall look worse, you’ve probably eroded much of the sympathy you might otherwise have eroded.
Non-specific “you”, not alephsquared solely.
Science, in many cases, is statistical and deals with averages of people. Science attempts to define and categorize, but in making generalizations, it simplifies and generalizes. Science uses language to represent and describe, but language can never be perfectly precise and accurate, nor can language be perfectly concise while still being perfectly accurate. Science is responsible for illustrating that there are different types of men, women, maleness and femaleness, trassexuals, homosexuals and more. By generalizing, yes, it’s not strictly speaking accurate to all possible variations in sex, gender, biology and whatnot, but it does mean the post is readable.
For me, this is part of it but another part is the unreasonable, damning, self-righteousness of the people demanding the apology.
You are correct. I did not mean to infer any explicit intent on Hall’s part, but I realize that I did imply that.
I realize you said this was not explicitly direct at me, but I want to be clear: I’m not seeing it as an insult. Trust me, I’ve gotten insults. I’m trying to point out something that I felt was incorrect in her arguments.
Sure. And maybe this is my fault: I’m a mathematician, not a scientist. I care about counterexamples. But even so, her argument was that these are obviously real distinctions between men and women, therefore such distinctions exist. The fact that the antecedent is false (these are not real distinctions) causes her conclusion to be false (at least in the absence of more evidence.)
That said, I think I’ve made my point as best I can. Good-bye, all.
“Science attempts to define and categorize, but in making generalizations, it simplifies and generalizes. Science uses language to represent and describe, but language can never be perfectly precise and accurate, nor can language be perfectly concise while still being perfectly accurate.”
Nice tautologies.
@alephsquared
I can live with that, I wish the discussion had started with those points. I’m still interested in what the nuances are, should you care to explain them. The more the diversity of human sexuality can be explored and explained, the less likely people are to take the pre-existing categories for granted.
@Quill
Ya, tautological and more than a little purple
Do you actually work for the OED? I just finished Simon Winchester’s The Meaning of Everything. It was fantastic. I have two copies of the compact version, complete with magnifying glasses.
Dammit.
“eroded much of the sympathy you might otherwise have eroded.”
Last word should be “garnered”.
@WLU: My apologies for a two-word reply. I seem to have hit delete instead of return & just noticed the missing part, which was:
But I think I see your point, that since all scientific description is metaphoric it’s impossible to achieve perfect precision in any scientific description. To use a metaphor, the map of a territory cannot contain everything in the territory.
Personally, I find the sort of strident squabblemongering that led to Dr. Hall’s post–and that has sustained this Comments thread–to be tiresome. It is a testament to the thorn-in-my-side-y-ness engendered by said stridency that I have been motivated to post my first comment on this blog, on a post which addresses what I generally find to be a rather personal and distracting topic, namely the accusatory infighting between skeptical persons of late. My take is that all of this squabbling has approximately dick-all to do with skepticism, despite various attempts by Dr. Hall and some commenters here to bring a skeptical approach to bear, or hang the squabble within a generally skeptical framework.
It certainly does highlight many of we humans’ emotionally driven rational shortcomings. I fail to see how Dr. Hall’s failure (if you can call it a failure) to address all known permutations of gender, sex, and sexuality can be honestly seen as condemnation, oppression, or marginalization of those not addressed specifically. Dr. Hall’s detractors (distractors? Inquisitors?) seem to be attacking her by assuming an unstated major premise on her part (disrespect, dismissal, condemnation, oppression, or hate of all things not cis [I learned that term today, for which I must thank the quibblers and squabblers]), and then turning this sin of omission into some kind of rampaging Straw Godzilla that must be stopped at all costs before it destroys their idyllic utopia of all-inclusive specificity.
While it’s unfortunate that the non-cis (and I do honestly hope I’m using the term correctly; I am choosing “non-cis” as a way of identifying the population in a way that I, as a cis male man, understand, rather than as trans* whatever, which I don’t well understand, and if that choice of terms offends you, then I cordially invite you to take a flying fuck at a rolling donut) population has to deal with the ramifications of its lack of recognition, I think it’s something of a proverbial tempest in a teapot to portray a blogger’s lack of specificity as an indication that she’s a malicious Hitlerian vanguard of social and genderpolitical oppression. The teapot in question being the blogosphere, outside of which exists an actual world wherein actual actions affect actual humans.
I also hasten to add that I think Dr. Novella’s comment was downright lovely, for what it’s worth.
WLU:
Then there are those of us who really don’t care if they are trans or not. I think I’d rather deal with the individual as they wish to be perceived. I have met two women engineers who were born male (that I know of). The first one I was told about, and my only comment was that she could perhaps hold back on the make-up (this was thirty years ago). The second was a very interesting older woman who had great stories, but I wished she did not speak so much about her change. It had been done recently and she was so excited she had an audience who were okay with it.
Superdave:
Only if they are willing to learn to use the my terms correctly, and actually understand what they mean. They will need to be able to tell me what the eigenvalues and eigenvectors represent, and which Fourier process switches between the frequency and time domains. Is that reasonable?
Seriously, these are not terms we all deal with in our day to day world. It also doesn’t help that something we were told with our young and nimble brains were insults are now proper terms. Obviously we didn’t get the notice to the changing vocabulary because we can’t think properly, and our experience means very little.
And seriously, other than the insults of ignoring Dr. Col. Hall’s experience, and basically being told that older women like us do not know sexism, etc, I really don’t care about this whole mess. I really don’t actually care what Shermer or Benson said, to each other or at any time. I am just not interested in either of their interpretations of the social world.
I will say this: I am very glad that a friend of mine ripped into me about the prejudice I had of homosexuals almost forty years ago just after graduating from high school. I was echoing all the muck I heard from my Army officer father. It opened my eyes, and gave me the opportunity to enjoy the company and friendship of several interesting people. I hope this old age isn’t going to make my mind become close.
So…..I finally looked up cis.
Honestly, who knew we needed a word for agreeing with your gender matching your sex?–and how does one really know, anyway? Also, am I the only one old enough to remember the really old meaning of “queer”–as in “odd”?
I wonder how some of the weirdly critical people who have appeared today manage to bring themselves to tick any box at all when confronted with “sex” or the now rather ubiquitous “gender”?
Before anyone offers me a load of nonsense, let me make it clear that there are gay, queer, homosexual, cis, and maybe even trans people among those I love most–many of us sometimes wear the same t-shirt for a week!
Dr. Novella’s comment cuts both ways. Most on here assume that he was referring to Dr. Hall’s detractors but many if not most commenters here are guilty of it also. In other words both sides have vocal proponents who are being maximally uncharitable.
Further I am disappointed in the dismissal that people are displaying for the ideas, definitions, and concept of ‘cis’ or ‘trans’. It is in poor form to be so dismissive. Definitions change, new words are added because of a perceived need. Claiming that you don’t have to use them if you don’t want, that the terms are too narrow or specific to a ‘field’ for you too know about, or that the definition has changed from when you were younger are all regardless and largely irrelevant.
Some of you will argue that I am not being maximally charitable. Even skeptics love their straw men.
@ WLU: as to your question, I did have something to do with the OED Second Edition, but that was a while ago. I put it as a link on my screen name in hopes others not as familiar as you with its wonders might find out more.
Janet asked: “Also, am I the only one old enough to remember the really old meaning of ‘queer’–as in ‘odd’?”
I remember that!
@alephsquared – My apologies, I had to step away from the computer for a while and now my husband is longing for my presence on the sofa so we can watch DVR’d Daily Show. I’ve read your answer/question, though, and am thinking on it. will post a response tomorrow. Understand if you can’t get back to it, though. Cheers.
Dr. Hall, thank you for all you have done, and do, as a doctor and a skeptic. I enjoy your posts and stories on here. I also don’t think you should even have to clarify you’re a feminist. When I think of women who broke barriers, were one of the firsts in their field, I don’t wonder if they considered themselves a feminists or associated with a group or movement, I’m just happy they did it, and made a path for more women. I’m sorry if some of this has been said, I didn’t read the comments because I have no desire to be part if the conversation, but just wanted you to know I’m a woman who admires your hard work, and I’m sure hard life in the Air Force.
Hi Geek Goddess,
I’m not young, hip, cute, and hard-drinking enough to get hit on either. I still have the thin thing going, but it’s the way too thin variety that makes me unattractive (I know this because women have told me so).
And, I understand where you’re coming from. No one gives a damn what I have to say either, despite years of participation in, and monetary support of, skeptical endeavors. I, too, am tired.
That Rebecca can make such a self-centered and insulting rebuttal to Dr. Hall, yet still get support from any skeptics in this community is appalling. Her “feminism” messaging has been almost exclusively negative and, as a result, has been detrimental to the community. And now she expects to be taken seriously while railing against those who have earned our respect through amazing life achievements.
Well, here are some words of wisdom for Rebecca from an old, unhip, uncute, too thin, person who has never been a hard-drinker.
1) If you want to be treated with dignity and respect, you need to behave with dignity and a respectful manner towards others.
2) If you want to be treated with empathy and compassion, you need to exhibit those qualities.
3) If you want to be taken seriously you need to engage in well-reasoned debate and not use dismissive, insulting snark as your most common response to disagreement.
4) If you want to be considered a skeptic, you must exhibit introspection, own your mistakes and apologize for them.
I have watched Rebecca for years, and although I appreciated her enthusiasm, I felt she lacked wisdom. I hoped that she would gain some wisdom and, therefore, deserve her place on stage. Unfortunately, she has not. Rebecca is the antithesis of what we should expect as good role models for skepticism, because she refuses to listen to, and learn from, those who have acquired wisdom through education and experience. And, she seems incapable of reexamining her own thinking.
How’s that for a rant, GG? I fully admit that it has nothing to do with Dr. Hall’s post and, therefore, is a complete derail. But I’m fed up with Rebecca’s antics and her dismissal of women like you and Dr. Hall who, through your intelligence and determination, have broken through huge barriers and made the world a better place for women. Rebecca, OTOH, is driving women away with her insistence that the community isn’t safe, and by her ugly behavior which women like you and I want no part of.
Geek Goddess:
Gah, it is like being back in high school!
There was a reason I got out of there a year early. Whatever I experienced in college as an engineering student in the late 1970s, was nothing compared to the bullying I experienced in high school because I did not conform. Now we are getting it again for not conforming to some kind of arbitrary standard based on language that has changed, and is possibly still fluid.
I have a daughter who recently started college, and I have no idea where she falls on that ever changing alphabet soup of sex/gender gobbledygook. But here is the kicker: I do not care. What I do care is that she is happy, healthy and safe.
And does anyone remember when “gay” meant happy? I recall a line in “Doctor in the House”, the first of a series of books by Richard Gordon, written in the early 1950s, where one medical student (cis heterosexual male), a perpetual student subsidized by a family trust as long as he is still a student as I recall, says to another that he “wants to change imperceptibly from gay young to dirty old man”.
DerekF:
I remember someone in my sixth grade class whose first name was “Gay.” This reminds me of the problem with one Christian website’s issue with Tyson Gay: Christian Site’s Ban on ‘G’ Word Sends Homosexual to Olympics.
I would really love to go to TAM again. The first one I went to was TAM9. I could not go last year due to dealing with my son’s post heart surgery therapy (it ends this month!). But we are waiting to see how our finances will go with an engineers’ strike for the second time in twenty years.
While watching “7 Psychopaths” I thought I heard Christopher Walken say that they no longer like being called “gay”. So, who knows what the term de jour is? I don’t care for word police.
@ Chris: See all the *fun and games* you missed by not attending the 2012 TAM Conference?
You missed the spectacle that unfolded when a conference attendee *hit on* another conference attendee…and the drama that played out…and is still playing out.
Rebecca, you need to get over yourself and do what grownups do when they are subjected to an unwanted *hit*. For cripes sake, you are thirty-two years old and at no time were you *in danger*…yet you *managed* to make yourself the center of attention. You need to take down those awful posts and screenshots of filth that were directed at you, that you keep placing on a separate website. If you haven’t figured it out yet, you are encouraging the creeps to continue their vile remarks.
@ Will: I see what you did there on the Skepchick blog…you’ve had your *fun*…now just let it all go. BTW, I don’t care how you identify yourself, what your *equipment* is and how you derive sexual pleasure. What I do care about is your whining, b!tching and moaning about LGBT identities, while practicing the most blatant and unwarranted hypocrisy about Dr. Hall’s competence, her *supposed* prejudices and her age.
Dr. Hall is uneasy with the use of the “Queer” word, as I am. Perhaps if you had lived through the 1960s, when when figurative and actual queer-bashing incidents occurred with alarming frequency, you might have a clue. I am also uncomfortable when black comedians use the “N” word, because I lived through the 1950s and 1960s when little black children were murdered when their church was bombed, when southern cops turned fire hoses on peaceful protesters…after they beat them with billy clubs.
I’m sick of the “she said, he said, the parsing of each word, the pedantry and the nit-picking game” and the personal attacks on Dr. Hall.
I’m with Team Harriet…and proud of it.
<blockquoteI have a daughter who recently started college, and I have no idea where she falls on that ever changing alphabet soup of sex/gender gobbledygook.
People have died (lots and lots of people) simply because part of their indentity fell in what you term an “alphabet soup” of “sex/gender gobbledygook.” So you may not take it particularly seriously, and I certainly can’t make you, but please understand that this “gobbledygook” is deadly serious to a lot of us.
Then you are a better person than most. But you know what? If she does fall in the group of people referenced by that gobbledygook? One thing that will make her safer than people who have gone before is society respecting the identities of us alphabet soupers. It’s not a big step, but a great start is for people who don’t particularly care not to reduce our identities to “sex/gender gobbledygook.”
And yes, I know, I’m sorry. I was gone. The law of the internet flounce has struck.
@alephsquared
Which do you think would keep Chris’ daughter happier and safer: that we carefully label every nuance of human sexual/gender behaviour and use those labels religiously, or that we hold such distinctions as not the determining characteristic of a person and concentrate on people as persons instead and not as sexual/gender labels?
I have to echo Rebecca Watson in that this in particular stood out for me from your original post:
I find it interesting that you’ve stripped your message-T of all its context. Remember the front of the T-shirt that said I feel safe and welcome at TAM? You’re implying that you wore the shirt to avoid being called a chick. I can’t imagine anyone has had the temerity to do so. To be on the safe side, though, you wore the thing for three days, just in case! (BTW, your original shirt did not have the hyphen between skep and chick, and you know that skepchicks is a forum of writers, and there was a hullaballoo about that group and a ‘friend’ of yours, but your shirt was really all about preventing the indignity of being called a chick, yeah, right.)
For someone who is not a joiner, you sure joined a side on this one! Not those sensitive feminists, but the boys’ club. After all, you excelled in breaking the gender barrier in not just one but two fields without anyone holding your hand or providing you with support groups. All the whiners need to quit being such victims and pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like you did. It sure sounds like mentoring other women is an alien concept to you, since you live for the day when we don’t see color or gender, just highly-achieving individuals! Yay!
And you wonder why it’s all not dying a natural death…
Panthera spelaea -
I think that’s a false dichotomy. I think we can respect people’s identities (however they choose to identify themselves or not identify themselves) *and* recognize that people are not determined by a single label.
Besides, asking that people acknowledge the existence of trans* people is not “carefully label[ing] every nuance of human sexual/gender behaviour and us[ing] those labels religiously.”
But a final note: trans* people did not choose to label ourselves transsexual/transgender/etc. Those words did not originate within the trans* community. So please don’t lecture us on “why must you label everything!!!!” when this is not a label we chose. This is not some instance of queer theory academics seeking out painstakingly every possible sub-culture and applying a label and then looking around for a way to be offended. The label was applied because we have been seen as different enough from the norm to require some kind of linguistic distinction (and, of course, seen as psychologically disturbed enough to require medical terminology as well.) That now we get criticized for using the term ourselves and asking for our existence to be recognized is amusing.
This is the perfect display of Will’s ignorance, willful or otherwise. I would assume he knows that TAM stand for “The Amazing Meeting” and that it gets this name from “The Amazing Randi” otherwise known as James Randi. But is he aware that James Randi is himself gay? What’s this talk about these meetings being for straight white men, again?
Dr. Hall, don’t listen to this guy. He has no idea what he’s talking about. His distortions of reality aren’t worth your valuable time.
alephsquared “If you wrote that somewhere and some deaf people responded saying that they’d been hurt, would you dismiss their concerns or would you say, “hey, y’know what, didn’t think it was a problem, maybe still not sure it is all that bad, but sure, let me amend my statement”?”
I’m not a blogger, but I will answer what I do in my line of work, which is artist selling through galleries and art fairs. If someone makes a complaint* or makes a surprising observation about my work, my answer, time permitting, is usual. “Hm? Do you think so?” (At this point they usually elaborate and may answer one or two questions from me) Then I will say. “I see, I will have to think about that.” Then I will mull over their perspective for awhile and make changes as I see fit.
Generally, I get a lot of observations and suggestions, (nothing compared to what a popular blogger gets) and to be honest only a few, maybe five, of those have actually changed my work in any real way. I don’t think that’s because I’m particularly close minded to criticism, at least two of those five suggestions I resented pretty deeply when the patron delivered them, but after quite a bit of reflection, I started to feel better about pursuing their suggestion than my previous course, so I changed.
There are many, many observations that I have received that haven’t changed my work. Many of those observations were either not coherently explained, were impractical or were contrary to my individual goals and interests.
Because, I am an individual who pursues my own interests and skills. I produce work that people can look at and connect with intellectually or emotionally, but I can not/will not be responsible for producing work that every individual finds intellectually or emotionally pleasing. I will not be the public’s or society’s tool upon demand**.
Outside of technical changes (a chip, or scratch) I have never changed a piece of artwork that I considered “finished” based on an individual’s comment. If I started doing that, I would never finish anything. My work is a record of my progress, if some of is less mature…that is just how progress works.
There, but I’m not really sure that that answers MY question. Which is when a person is outlining a typical physiological process is it exclusionary for them to not mention all the atypical alternatives? Is that a practical rule? Or is there more to it than that?
*Of course a complaint about a purchased piece is different, although that is incredibly rare.
** Well actually with a large mark-up, 50% deposit, balance due upon delivery and reasonable approval process, I might be willing to be society’s tool, but society so seldom meets the reasonable approval process criteria.
…well actually society seldom meets the large mark-up, 50% deposit and balance due upon delivery, either. But maybe that says more about me as an artist, than society
@alephsquared
What, in your opinion, concentrating on people as persons and not labels would deny any aspect of what they are?
On a personal note, I have never had any problems accepting trans* or any other people. People are people, and that’s the end of it for me. The only things I strongly disapprove are things that are not between consenting adults.
@Panthera
You’re wasting your breath. For people to communicate there must be a shared language. Some of us come at this issue from the perspective that we are all far more alike than different; that contribution, character and ethics are the important defining characteristics of a human life.
Others seem to come at this trumpeting the essential importance of shining a klieg light on our differences and proclaiming that those differences must be not only acknowledged but placed on a pedestal where they can be examined and dissected and ultimately … what … embraced?
Is the goal to treat everyone with respect, for each person to have equal opportunities to live free and happy lives? Or is the goal to create a society of interest groups, each one with a litany of hurts, a lexicon of special words to describe them and a set of commandments delineating how each is to be treated in their own special ways?
Equality is not the objective of those who obsess about differences they see in others … or in themselves.
audpicc,
“There are tons of self identified queers. I am one. Generally the acronym is LGBTQ for this reason. Queer studies is an academic field. “Queer” has long since been reclaimed by gender-variant and sexual minorities. If you are so out of touch with LGBTQ people and ideas that you think our chosen word to identify ourselves and our movement is “a term most people in the LGBT community consider offensive” then I seriously doubt your knowledge of gender studies.”
While I’m aware that some individuals identify as “queer”, I don’t think the majority of gay men and lesbians do. I can’t speak for everyone, but I prefer to call myself “gay”, as does my boyfriend and other friends. I would take it as an offense to be called “queer”. While you’re right that LGBTQ is used as an acronym, it isn’t used as frequently and the ‘Q’ doesn’t always represent “queer” when it is used. It sometimes represents “questioning”, as in those individuals who might be questioning whether or not they are straight/cisgendered.
I have nothing but the greatest admiration for Dr. Hall and her perspective. She manages to do something that I find more than laudable: find a scientific angle to some of the more difficult questions of our day. Even if the science is not there yet (which she admits with skeptical aplomb) she shows those of us with a scientific mind how to look at topics that may not obviously have related data.
When the kerfuffle around that TAM and Rebecca erupted I was shocked at the push back. “Hey guys, don’t do that and don’t be dicks” engendered some of the most vitriolic nonsense I’ve ever seen. I was rather ashamed to be associated, even peripherally. I was firmly on Rebecca’s side. I felt that her efforts to get a clear cut policy for dealing with harassment at TAM was absolutely reasonable, given the circumstances.
To be honest, I’m not even sure what to believe anymore. The comment made by Rebecca above was childish and nasty for no good reason that I could see. Perhaps her feelings were hurt by Dr. Hall’s T-shirt. Why then did she immediately assume the worst, as I believe happened? Why was it completely outside the realm of possibility to go up to Dr. Hall and ask her what the T-shirt meant? And why did she think the appropriate response to that shirt was this? Surely she understands how harassment and threats are bothersome, to say the least.
I am trying exceptionally hard to apply Dr. Novella’s philosophy of charity to my interpretation of events, but I am seeing some conflicting views to what I perceived the problem was, and expressed by people that I respect greatly.
Perhaps Rebecca was hurt by the t-shirt. Perhaps her perspective has been greatly skewed by the multitudinous threats against her. Perhaps that is why, as some people have said, she is taking this particular tack. I am deeply confused by the reasons for her comment and what, precisely, she is trying to accomplish with it.
I welcome more information on this topic, as I obviously lack information on why people are behaving the way they are. I hate the fact that these two sides (I’m sure there are more) of the skeptical movement are fighting and that it is so very bitter.
Well stated. Seems reasonable to me that if Rebecca did find it offensive, etc that a reasonable course of action would be to ask Dr. Hall her intent and then rationally and civilly explain her offense. Dr. Hall is still a human, after all, and can easily make mistakes just as any of us can. She could not have seen the hurtful implications. And with no reasonable argument against the shirt could easily continue to wear it for three days. But I fully believe that had Rebecca (or anyone) come up to her and said, “Hey, I know you probably didn’t mean it this way but…” and gave a cogent explanation that shirt would not have been worn on days two and three.
And I myself have been guilty of useless snark. And I pretty much always feel bad afterwards. And have indeed offered public apologies for it (see above) despite the fact that in the barest of meaning I still feel correct in my statements. It is merely a professional thing… a skeptical thing… to realize that I should always be introspective and despite how I may feel be willing to deeply examine my own thoughts on a matter and see what actually makes good sense.
I have to agree, Reading Frame. I keep up with several blogs daily and find it emotionally and mentally exhausting. My tendency is toward Dr. Novellas charitability, I think.
I have noticed, however, my willingness to accept a level of stridency depending on the subject, which seems, in hindsight, inequitable. Perceived whining aggravates me, but is likely only my own perception, again depending on my position on the issue (which may be that I have no position).
So, I will retreat back into my lurkers recliner and recharge my batteries.
This seems to be an eminently reasonable blog entry. i couldn’t find a single point of dispute on your list of ‘common goals’ towards the end of the piece.
Unfortunately, some people seem incapable of rationally parsing and comprehending what others have to say. Once they have decided you are against them every single thing you say will be viewed from the worst possible interpretation and given the worst possible spin.
You are firmly camped in their circle of mistrust Harriet. There is nothing you can say now, no argument however rational, that won’t be twisted and distorted beyond recognition.
It is utterly pathetic.
Reading Frame “The comment made by Rebecca above was childish and nasty for no good reason that I could see.”
I thought that possibly she was channeling Howard Roark…I mean it’s hard to resist when one gets caught up in a Howard Roark moment. But, the topic of her feelings in response to a t-shirt about SkepChicks at TAM didn’t seem particularily relavant to a discussion of Will’s article on gender/sex and how HH’s article could effect the transgender community.
Maybe I’m just missing the connection…there seems to be a lot of “in group” information that someone not following the skeptical community social interactions would miss. To be honest, I’m not wild about basing any argument on “in group” information. Lay out the terms and make your argument, I say. Don’t expect readers to spend four hours of their day sifting through the backstory of individual characters.
Dear Harriet,
I’m pretty sure I started reading you mostly because of the things you said that I disagreed with rather than the things I agreed with — that is to say, I didn’t come to the party as a sycophant or fanboi (I believe the issue that initially caught my attention was on the risks of home-birthing) but rather as a critic.
That being said, I’ve never seen a statement from you that would justify the level of blind vitriol engendered by this particular bicker. Will’s piece can’t reasonably be read as anything but a dedicated effort at vilification, which is surely a waste of time for anyone honestly interested in pursuing constructive debate. I can’t help but wonder for which specific audience he’s pandering and begging for approval from with these histrionics.
I think the focus on feminist issues within the sceptical movement has revealed the true colours of some people, by exposing how personally threatened they are by sex/gender identity issues and the peeling back of privilege. They were, it seems, “me too!” sceptics at best…because when emotionally riled from their zone of safety they respond like the ignorant curs we usually all work together to educate.
I’m glad you took the time to defend your statements. I can’t say I agree with all of them, personally, but your record as a sceptic and the even-handed way you have dealt with your critics over the years suggests to me that you are a very undeserving target of such attacks as Will’s and Ophelia’s. (No one mistake, please: I’m not playing “tone police” here — Harriet can surely deal with spume and ire — but I thought as sceptics we were trying to set an example for others about how to engage with people with whom we disagree in way profitable to all parties.)
Yours,
Chester Burton Brown
http://www.cheeseburgerbrown.com
@Skanderbeg
“Further I am disappointed in the dismissal that people are displaying for the ideas, definitions, and concept of ‘cis’ or ‘trans’. It is in poor form to be so dismissive.”
It is you has labelled remarks as “dismissive”. I looked up cis because it is a new term to me and I was interested to know its meaning. My initial reaction is that it’s not very useful in everyday life for me, but I am glad to be aware of it and made a note to discuss it with my grandson who may be able to further inform me. It’s difficult to cover every nuance of a view in the context of a comment and I think people often read way too much into them, which only leads to further confusion.
Also, I’m well aware that language changes, but I think it’s natural for older people to sometimes be a bit mystified by the pace of change in their own lifetimes. To comment on it is hardly dismissive or “poor form”–at least not intentionally so. But, just to show “good form” I sincerely apologize for any insult, real or perceived.
What seems to have emerged here (other than the sadly predictable internet fustercluck) is a manifestation of an intergenerational schism in the skeptic movement. As a 49 year old feminist/atheist, I am old enough to recall the institutional barriers to women that are now illegal because of the heavy lifting done by people like Harriet. Will’s comment that Harriet “has had 40 years” to educate herself on the new terminology and other more pointed anonymous comments on Twitter and elsewhere reflect a systemic ageism on the internet, the arrogance of youth and relative inexperience, and a failure to recognize (they are too young to have seen it first-hand) that semantics are provisional at best and change over time.
Looking at posts by Will and Rebecca, I cringe to recall my own snark and the disrespect I had for my elders back in the day. I am grateful there is no permanant record of same, and I use threads like this to educate my teenage daughters, encouraging them to do some of their growing up away from a keyboard.
And while people continue to fall down the rabbit hole of semantic extremism, civil rights continue to be threatened at the hands of fundamentalists. Abortion rights are being rolled back all across the US. The Koch brothers continue to fund the Tea Party. LGBTQ people are threatened or killed around the world because of who they are.
Time to expose identity politics as the intellectual dead end that it is.
To summarize – everyone here seems to agree on some pretty important principles:
- gender equality
- judging people by the content of their character, and not by physical or gender attributes
- creating a safe and open environment regardless of sex or gender
- the concept of sex and gender are complex and multifarious, and it’s all within the spectrum of what it is to be human.
- condemnation of sexism in all its forms
- respect and recognition of the dignity of all people regardless of their sex/gender.
Can we all please recognize that these are important points of general agreement?
The points of contention are small by comparison and it is irresponsible, in my opinion, not to put them into the context of the above areas of agreement.
Points of contention:
- Is it strategically better, in order to achieve the above goals, to pursue a sex/gender blind society (Harriet’s approach), or one that celebrates sex/gender distinctions (Skepchick approach)? Harriet has stated specifically that she has made a personal choice for the former, but does not condemn the latter. This seems like a point that can be discussed civilly without implying disagreement on the core principles outlined above.
- Is it OK to use colloquial male/female or man/woman binary language when the topic of discussion does not directly involve the cis/trans issue? While no-one is defending the straw man position that human gender is binary, there are those defending the position that it is bimodal – to a first approximation most people fall into a man/woman category, with recognized exceptions to this general rule. Yes the exceptions should be recognized and respected, but does this meant that a caveat of their existence is universally necessary. I am not taking a position – just pointing out that this is the actual point of contention. I would only add that I think Harriet is being unfairly singled out on this issue (which I think was made a proxy excuse to dismiss her many valid points). Look through the Skepchick blog and you will see many posts that assume man/woman binary categories when discussing topics not directly related to the cis/trans issue.
@alephsquared
Thank you for your ongoing and civil discussion of the perspective of trans* people. Your thumbnail sketches of the history and lives of people and words are interesting, and I will try to keep them in mind when issues of sex and gender come up in the future.
Though trans* people are a minority, one of the great things about societies based on democracy, freedoms and science is that minorities acquire a presence and voice disproportionate to their demographics, one that often leads to a greater appreciation of human diveristy and equality that transcends previous distinctions – a gradual climb from the gutter of “us and them” to a more encompassing “all of us together”. I realize that even in so-called “bastions” of freedom such as North America and Europe, there is still misunderstanding, persecution, hatred and violence, and I hope you continue your efforts to confront people with their preconceptions, assumptions and unrecognized prejudices. I hope you are met with people who are honest and self-critical enough to realize their assumptions need to change. I will personally try to do better.
Thank you again for helping me expose the some of the prejudices I wasn’t particularly aware of.
Have you seen Dr. Hall’s other post this week? I would be interested in reading any comments you might have regarding any areas you think are missing, simplified and handled well.
I think Stephen Novella’s comment is great. An excellent summary of the points that I agree with as well as the questions that this discussion seems to be grappling with.
I can not say I have a fully formed opinion on answers to those questions, but I’m open to hearing pros and cons to different approaches.
Reading Frame, You said:
“I am trying exceptionally hard to apply Dr. Novella’s philosophy of charity to my interpretation of events, but I am seeing some conflicting views to what I perceived the problem was, and expressed by people that I respect greatly.
Perhaps Rebecca was hurt by the t-shirt. Perhaps her perspective has been greatly skewed by the multitudinous threats against her. Perhaps that is why, as some people have said, she is taking this particular tack. I am deeply confused by the reasons for her comment and what, precisely, she is trying to accomplish with it.”
I call it “steel manning”, but I tried the same with Rebecca’s post. I tried to ignore the irrelevancies and what some consider childish. What I gather is that Rebecca took the shirt to be an implication that Skepchicks weren’t skeptical, while Hall is saying it only expressed her views on approaching feminism (which differ from other skeptical feminists). I can see both points of view, but think that Dr. Hall’s explanation should be taken at face value, and is a good place for agreement. Some wonder why Rebecca didn’t just ask? Well, I’ve been in Rebecca’s shoes when it comes to taking offense to gay slurs and sometimes you just don’t feel the battle is worth it.
There is also an issue about what the front of the shirt said, which was “I feel safe and welcome at TM”. Hall didn’t offer an explanation for this. On one side, people think this is (irresponsibly) making light of the issue of women being sexually harassed by members of the skeptical community (a problem I think most people agree exists). On one side the shirt can be viewed as denialism, on the other side it can be seen as a statement of Hall’s personal view of TAM. Though, a seemingly strange time to make such a statement. As you said, more background would be helpful here.
Okay – I’m probably getting obsessive so I’ll have to walk away for awhile after this, but someone up thread (I can’t find the comment now) remarked that they are in no way bothered by sex/gender difference…that behaviors between consenting adults did not concern them. Which is a perfectly valid point.
But it did strike a cord with me because with transgender issues we don’t get to wait to make decisions until everyone is an informed/consenting adult. I have a FB friend (high school friend – FB reconnect) who’s child is transgender*. She is an active updater, and many of her comments refer to her son and transgender issues, school, parenting, transgender conferences, etc. It sounds like her father is vehemently opposed to how they are handling things and that makes life more difficult. And I can only imagine what they’ve gone through trying to decide the right way to handle all the flak from society, school, etc.
This is why I brought up the analogy to the deaf community, because parents of deaf or HoH children make decisions for their children that profoundly effect the rest of that child’s life and people tend to feel very emotionally involved in what those decisions SHOULD be. The vocabulary used can either encourage or discourage a productive discussion of the options and pros and cons.
This is one reason that I think it’s important to discuss the issues and be open to suggestions of language choices. Ultimately, if you want to be helpful or supportive of an individual who is dealing with any difference, you need language that is helpful and supportive.
But, it seems to me, I’d also like that language to be reasonably practical with some sort of consistence reasoning behind it. It shouldn’t just be an arbitrary “That not how we say it.”
*please feel free to correct me if my language is inappropriate.
“I feel safe and welcome at TAM”
Imagine there is a strike in front of a large corporation, Widgets Inc. People of color, under the banner of “WidgeteersOfColor” are picketing the company to draw attention to discrimination in that company’s hiring practices.
Now imagine a high level executive, who has risen through the ranks at Widgets Inc despite the darker color of his skin, decides to join the picketers wearing a big sign reading:
“I was NOT discriminated against by Widgets Inc.
They have always treated me fairly.”
on one side and
“I am a Widget employee.
Not a black Widget employee.
Not a ‘WidgeteerOfColor’
Just a Widget employee”
On the other side.
In such a hypothetical, what charitable interpretation could the picketers give as the basis for the executive going to such great lengths to get HIS message out? I’d be keenly interested in seeing how the “principle of maximal charitableness” would come into play here.
@baldape,
So you are for curtailing his freedom of expression since it doesn’t agree with the others?
@weing,
I don’t think that is the point. The question is not whether the individual in the scenario can do this without receiving government force preventing him from doing so (i.e., freedom of expression). The question is whether or not it is wise to ignore/make light of the plight of his fellow workers because he himself hasn’t experienced discrimination.
Pop-quiz, weing:
“Freedom of expression” means:
A) Freedom to say anything you want without government interference
B) Freedom to say anything you want without any consequences from anyone
C) Something else (please do explain)
@MKandefer
Are you sure that’s the question? Are you certain that the executive is ignoring or making light of the situation?
Perhaps the executive is simply standing up for what he believes to be the truth: that there isn’t systematic discrimination at the company. Perhaps he believes that his own situation is evidence to support that position. Perhaps he feels that, as a person of color, and as a prominent member of the Widgets Inc. community he has a duty to defend the company and push back against what he sees as an unwarranted assault against the community to which he belongs.
But that just my guess.
Reading Frame:
If I recall correctly, Rebecca Watson ended up not going to TAM as a result of the ‘we don’t need no stinkin’ harassment policy, and it’s all Skepchick’s fault anyway that less women are attending.’ Surly Amy (who sponsored attendees to TAM, btw) did ask Dr. Colonel Hall about the t-shirt the first day, saying how much it upset her, given all the harassment already going on, and Dr. Colonel Hall said something to the effect that she was wearing it to ‘generate discussion.’ Dr. Colonel Hall has also rejected the notion of discussing the t-shirt before now (even though I thought that was the whole point) because her words would just be distorted and mischaracterized.
Of course Dr.Colonel Hall felt safe and comfortable at TAM; she’s one of the silverbacks! You think she would have had a bit more empathy for the younger feminists who don’t have the protection of status and authority. I guess demonstrating that she is a ‘tough old hen’ was more important.
“Queer” is offensive to me. Period. I am gay. Out at work and in my personal life. I do realize that some people and some groups of people have claimed to reclaim the word for their own identities. That is fine and I do not begrudge you using that word to describe yourselves. But the word “queer” still has a root meaning and connotation of “other,” “different,” “not belonging,” “strange,” “doesn’t fit in.”
For example, a normal usage of the word would be in the context, “That’s a queer thing to say.” In response to someone being out of context, unusual, unprofessional, or otherwise a non-sequitor. Or “That’s a queer lampshade,” meaning it doesn’t match the rest of the decor, doesn’t fit in with the environment, might be an shape or size that doesn’t fit in. That’s what the word queer means to me. That’s what it means to most of the people I communicate with in my professional & personal lives.
If I were at a faculty meeting and I used the word “queer” to describe someone’s sexual identity for whatever context, it would be frowned upon …. and I would likely get a talking-to by my chair … and my colleagues would take me less seriously. I do clinical research on HIV and the LGBT population in my community makes a big contribution to success of our efforts to slow/stop/find a cure/treat/improve access to care (etc) for the HIV-infected population. So there are reasons for me to say that I’m meeting with an LBGT organization, or certain factors are important for gay men, or transmission risks are applicable to gay men (we actually say/write more formally “men who have sex with men” or “MSM” because it is true that not all MSM identify as gay, but using the word “gay” is acceptable shorthand).
I am only saying this because I think that Rebecca and others have been uncharitable (to use Steven’s term) to Harriet in her post. She wrote that “queer” is offensive and she was right. To fixate on something like this, and react with such hostility on this one point with such circle-the-wagons mentality is … for lack of a better term, militant.
Baldape said
The “charitable” interpretation of your loaded vignette would be that the gentleman was expressing his opinion. That’s all. You don’t like his opinion? Fine. Your call on that. But that’s all it is. An opinion. Getting your panties in a twist over an opinion is, well, silly. Move on.
mousethatroared:
Having had my children in a school that also included the district’s deaf and hearing impaired population, I am well acquainted with the differences of opinion in that population. It starts with the decision to use Signing Exact English versus ASL, and then it can escalate to members of certain Deaf culture groups objecting to children getting cholear implants.
dandover:
Well that did seem to be a problem at the last TAM, and the person it centered on was not Dr. Hall. But there is no reason to rehash that fiasco.
alephsquared, I think you are doing too much pearl clutching. I have heard about the struggles of trans, bisexual, etc as told to me by my daughter when dealing with her friends in high school. She actually said Dan Savage was dismissive of transgender people, and therefore he is a “douche.” (I’m quoting her, and I don’t know much about Mr. Savage other than he writes a sex advice column, has been in a committed relationship with another man, and is has at least one child, about which he wrote a book). I am glad she uses me as a sounding board for these kinds of issues. And unlike Will and yourself, she does not browbeat my negligent use of the ever fluid vocabulary.
I have gained much by having an open mind, and really being more interested in the people over their labels. Perhaps you should try to open up a bit more.
Chris “Having had my children in a school that also included the district’s deaf and hearing impaired population, I am well acquainted with the differences of opinion in that population. It starts with the decision to use Signing Exact English versus ASL, and then it can escalate to members of certain Deaf culture groups objecting to children getting cholear implants.”
Yes – that’s what I’m referring too. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I think the decision between oral vs sign language (or both) and CI vs non surgical intervention are very difficult decisions that parent must make for their kids before the kids can give any sort of meaningful informed consent.
etatro:
I did a bit of google-U, and wiki lists as topics both ‘queer theory’ and ‘queer studies.’
The University of Leeds offers an MA in Gender, Sexuality and Queer Theory, Concordia University offers a course called Introduction to Queer Theory, Northern Arizona University offers a course in Queer Studies, California College of the Arts, Oakland & San Francisco offers an upper-division “Making Queer Histories” course, Sonoma State University offers a minor in Queer Studies, Stanford University has a Queer Straight Alliance and Queer Awareness Days, University of California at Davis has a Queer Research Cluster, Mills College offers a Queer Studies minor… ok, I got tired of looking. I think at any of the faculty meetings at these institutes of higher education you can use the word queer without getting a talking to.
ildi — I think it depends on your department. I work in 2 departments (Psychiatry and Medicine; within the school of medicine) that are more conservative than Humanities. If someone used “queer” in that context, it would be viewed as offensive and probably make people in the room uncomfortable. I do realize that “queer studies” is a thing and the people in the humanities are welcome to use the word as they wish to describe what they’re studying. But to me, the negative connotation of the word is explicitly exclusionary and I do not like it.
I do have some value judgements on the culture that embraces it … sort of self-ghettoization … but that’s a separate issue.
What I am saying is that Harriet was correct. “Queer” is offensive to some people in the LGBT community (ie, me). That various people nit-pick at Harriet’s post to build up a straw man to beat on about her “not understanding” all the nuances of various humanities departments totally misses the point. In my estimation, Harriet was being MORE sensitive, MORE PC, MORE inclusive than those who are berating her.
@ildi “Of course Dr.Colonel Hall felt safe and comfortable at TAM; she’s one of the silverbacks!”
I’m shocked at the callous assertion that Dr. Hall is a mature male gorilla. This kind of trans-species gender disnormativity makes a mockery of both the well-documented struggles endured by the developing male gorilla, and of gorilla culture in general, which is generally much less tolerant of hazy sex and gender categories than is human culture. Honestly, this aping of Dr. Hall really drives me bananas.
First of all, Dr. Colonel Hall said
not some people. If most people in the LGBT community found it offensive we wouldn’t have a ton of universities offering courses and minors and student groups calling it that – even if it is in the lowly humanities end of the spectrum – because universities in general tend to be PC when it comes to how people self-label. You, of course, are free to stay in your part of the ivory tower way above the ghetto.
Okay, this is going to be a longer response than I’d like, I can tell.
First, I am a self-identified queer, cis-gendered bisexual woman. I am more a member of the LGBTQ community than the skeptic community, and definitely identify as a feminist. I completely understand the emotion behind the issue, and the initial anger and annoyance at being mislabeled or underrepresented.
However, I have to disagree with the above poster who claimed intent doesn’t matter when it comes to whether a remark is dismissive or offensive. I really think it does, because when one approaches a subject with intentions other than to offend or dismiss, he or she will be more open to discussion of exactly why what was said may have, in fact, offended or dismissed. I did not find the tone or text of Dr. Hall’s original post or the post above to be either of those things. I can see now how some people within the community could have issues with certain wording and labeling. I do not think that the appropriate lexicon is unimportant or insignificant. Still, I think almost everyone here is pretty willing to learn it if taught and a straightforward comment either correcting the labels or linking to a site that explains them would have sufficed in terms of a response.
I read this blog a lot, not as a member of any skeptic or scientific community, but to keep myself informed of medical and health information, especially when tempted to be swayed by fads and pop science. I find it extremely helpful, and I also find it to be a very welcoming place.
Further, I am from a working class place and very active in the LGBTQ community here. Not the Academic queer theory community, but the students, young people, poor working people without post secondary education, etc. I have friends who represent every letter of that acronym. Very few, if any of them, would pass muster in the online queer academic community when it comes to using the correct terms for everyone all the time. This includes trans men and women. The fact is, being up-to-date and educated about every facet of LGBTQIA life and study is a privilege. Every member of the community I know is open to educating themselves, and will amend themselves when corrected – just as the members of this comments section have almost universally done, just as Dr. Hall has done. However, that doesn’t seem to be enough. If we rant and rave at these people for not getting it right all the time, logically we should also be ostracizing a large portion of the community we’re claiming to represent. The wording is tricky. Don’t pretend it isn’t. Learning is important, creating accepting, educated people and spaces is an important and worthwhile pursuit. But we’ll never do it if we treat every subject as something everyone else should already be completely informed about.
I hope the tone of this post isn’t angry or dismissive, truly. Thanks for reading.
HRH The Wise and Benevolent Kov, that is hilarious!
Not to mention, in the context of this discussion: ildi’s comment was ageist. It seems that the theme here is also dismissing the accomplishments of women breaking down gender barriers forty years ago, and at the same time reminding me why I hated high school cliques.
Mousethatroared, the book Train Go Sorry covers many of the deaf ed issues.
Chris wrote
Srsly.
In addition, IMO, the argument that since she said “most” people in the LGBT community find the term offensive but it’s really only many…or …some….or a few, therefore Dr Hall is some kind of sexist/genderist is SO tiresome. It is nothing more than simple (deliberate?) pettifogging. How many angels can dance on a pin?
HRH – that made me LOL.
Dandover,
EXACTLY. We agree completely. Even though the exec doesn’t say those bolded words directly, the context in which he presented his words makes his message clear: “There is no systematic discrimination at Widgets, Inc. This is evidenced by my ability, as a black man, to succeed within the company.” The inescapable implication of this message? “Those who are reporting systematic discrimination at Widgets Inc must be mistaken or lying.”
Conversely, that is exactly the message that a reasonable person would take from Dr. Hall’s T-shirt: “I believe there is not pervasive sexual harassment in the skeptical community. This is evidenced by the fact that I, a woman, feel safe attending skeptical events.” The inescapable implication of her message? “Those who are reportedly encountering pervasive sexual harassment within the skeptical community are either mistaken or lying.”
If that was the message she intended to send, then I absolutely understand the cold shoulder she’d get from the women whose reported experiences of harassment she is publicly undermining. If that was not the message she intended to send, then I would love for her to spend 30 minutes discussing exactly what she WAS trying to convey with a message she spent days broadcasting on her T-shirt.
Dandover, you said:
“Are you sure that’s the question? Are you certain that the executive is ignoring or making light of the situation?”
I cannot comment about the actual state of affairs in the fictional example that I didn’t create. I acknowledge it’s a possibility in this example, given reasonable assumptions. What I think is clear is that there is sexism in the skeptic community and it is a problem. This has been acknowledged by Gorski and Novella:
“Also, to be fair, there is a misogyny problem in the skeptical movement. It’s hard not to come to that conclusion if you spend some time perusing the Slymepit:
http://slymepit.com” ~ David Gorski, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gender-differences-and-why-they-dont-matter-so-much/
“Recently efforts to make organized secularism and skepticism more friendly to women have been hampered by what appears to be a cyberattack by sexists and misogynists against prominent feminists within the movement. [...] First, I have to say (and I find general agreement on this point) that the misogynist attacks are completely unacceptable. They are poison, they make rational discussion about how best to promote feminism within our movement difficult, and they tend to radicalize all sides. [...] What I am condemning as misogyny are e-mails and online posts that refer to feminists being raped, desires that they suffer from violence, attacking their physical attributes, and crude derogatory sexist language. As a community we absolutely need to be united in our condemnation of this behavior.” ~Steve Novella, http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scientific-skepticism-rationalism-and-secularism/
In light of the sexism problem it may not have been wise to wear a shirt that could be interpreted as a statement claiming that there was no problem. Note, this does not mean that Dr. Hall was making light of it, as I acknowledged earlier. I also said earlier, more background information would be great to have. Perhaps this wasn’t a well-known problem at the time of that TAM gathering.
The use of “silverback” is a slang term for a brutish man who has money and power and who preys on younger women. Take a look at Will’s blog that Harriet Hall linked to and see all the comments about “silverbacks” and the broad generalizations of males who are involved in the skeptic movement. (I’m looking at you, “Ildi”)
“Of course Dr.Colonel Hall felt safe and comfortable at TAM; she’s one of the silverbacks! You think she would have had a bit more empathy for the younger feminists who don’t have the protection of status and authority. I guess demonstrating that she is a ‘tough old hen’ was more important.”
See how Will encourages those comments and how Will also encourages comments about Dr. Hall’s age. Will made a pathetic attempt to smear Dr. Hall due to a perceived lack of sensitivity on behalf of the LGBT community…then encourages ageist comments, such as Ildi’s.
Let me clarify…the incident referred to as “elevatorgate” did NOT happen at a TAM event. It occurred at another event the year before. The remark that Rebecca found highly offensive was an offer extended by a man to have her join him in his room for coffee…nothing more.
Jeez, Rebecca before I grew into a “silverback” I was a young woman who received such “offers” (plenty of them), and I never stereotyped all men as “players” who preyed on my innocence. I never tried to consolidate my power to get others on board to destroy skeptic groups/wrest control of those groups, by parlaying one small incident into a BFD.
I, like Dr. Hall, managed to raise two children (one with extraordinary “special needs”), along with a career in health care and along with a 36-year “career” in advocacy on behalf of developmentally disabled children and adults. What have Rebecca and her groupies done to advance skepticism…after this schism of their own making?
[...] yankee skeptic for instance. [...]
lilady:
In the wee hours of the morning, and in his room. Not a public place like a cafe. And all she said is that it made her uncomfortable, and to please not do that. Others spurred it on with other accusations. Again, it was the misinterpretations that disintegrated into the divisional mess, bringing out the cadre of those who think advocating violence for politely mentioning it is not cool to ask for a young woman’s company in their room in the wee hours of the morning.
Trying again:
… bringing out the cadre of those who think advocating violence is the proper response to someone politely mentioning it is not cool to ask for a young woman’s company in their room in the wee hours of the morning.
@baldape
Why does Dr. Hall deserve the cold shoulder for this, simply because she may believe that these people are mistaken? Maybe she’s right! Maybe they are mistaken! No one is saying that the women who made claims of harassment are lying. But there hasn’t been any clear, convincing, evidence to show that TAM is not a safe, welcoming place for women. The plural of anecdote is not data, remember? A few anecdotes of harassment does not make TAM a place where women are systematically harassed.
Isolated incidents of harassment can occur at any place at any time. That some have happened at TAM shouldn’t be completely surprising, nor does their occurrence mean that TAM is an “unsafe” place for women to be. It is also unfair to attack TAM itself due to harassment from conference attendees (or even people who weren’t supposed to be there).
If this is indeed what Dr. Hall believes (I hope I’m not shoving a bunch of words in her mouth), then that seems totally reasonable and I see no justification for all the flak directed at her.
Dandover,
then we just disagree on what is sensible behavior. You don’t comfort someone offended/assaulted by dropping statistics that their problem while real is a rare occurrence. I don’t feel comforted when someone uses gay slurs by the fact that they are a dwindling population, it still hurts. I imagine if I were the victim of sexual harassment, I would not feel very comforted by the fact that it is rare. I think a positive statements from the community, like the one I quoted above from Dr. Novella (awaiting moderation due to links), acknowledging it as a problem to be address are good approaches. Is presenting statistics about the rarity of a phenomena how you’d talk to a friend about a problem they have? Is this how you’d want any problems you have addressed?
I hope this is the last time I hear about this crew or their like, they are trolling you into this in order to keep themselves on the radar and part of the debate. The only time they appear anywhere is when they are angry about something or attacking someone. I can’t believe you fall for it, or even care what they have to say. They are emotionally blackmailing people by using some imaginary idea about “The Skeptic Community”. There are people all over the world saying the same tripe all the time, but you don’t feel compelled to respond to them, do you? No but they call themselves skeptical and suddenly we’re “infighting”. How ridiculous! It’s nothing but a transparent ploy to get attention and further their agenda, spread their propaganda. Fueled by resentment against the people who have already tuned them out and wouldn’t listen to a word they said unless it was something negative about someone they cherished or respected like Shermer or Hall.
This is the kind of people who you just laugh at and ignore. Except so many people have been laughing at them and ignoring them for so long, they have taken it to a new level and tried to make it so you CAN’T laugh or ignore them. They go for shock and try to put you on the defensive and you’re so human you fall for it. Put your foot down and don’t let people manipulate you or emotionally blackmail you, they just make up new boogeymen when they feel they’ve gotten enough mileage out of you and enough new recruits.
Well, lilady, I’ve learned something. I didn’t know that silverback had a negative slang meaning; I was using it in the sense of one of the elders of a tribe who have more power, knowledge and authority. You’ll also have to explain to me how it is ‘ageist’ to refer to the experience, skills and authority someone has gained through the process of living more years than others. If you’re referring to the ‘tough old hen’ quote, I was referring to Dr. Colonel Hall saying she would prefer to be called that over a chick any day, and giving that as the reason for wearing her t-shirt at TAM.
Ildi:
Personally, I saw the ageism in your comment pretty readily. You were dismissing Hall’s feeling of safety because “of course” a “silverback” aka older, more experienced woman felt safe. That’s denying the idea that harassment and sexism can affect anyone at any age and is dismissive to her actual experience in the same way people may be dismissing the experience of those who did experience harassment.
ildi, several have mentioned that ageist vibe we have been getting. Go up and read them.
Ildi – You wrote: “You, of course, are free to stay in your part of the ivory tower way above the ghetto.”
Just stop and think about what you did there.
Oh, and then there is this ildi: “You think she would have had a bit more empathy for the younger feminists who don’t have the protection of status and authority.”
Like Geek Goddess, I am also not young, hip, etc., and am a nothing to the skeptics. I see the ageist shining all the way through.
I wasn’t dismissing her feeling of safety, I was agreeing with why she said she felt safe and comfortable at TAM. Now, that feeling of safety may have been illusory, so I was probably being more sexist than ageist, because I was considering that her high profile protected her from harassment. To be clear, though, my intent was to imply that her age granted her status and authority; to be ageist to me would be to say that she doesn’t understand these feminists because she’s too old and set in her ways. She’s certainly demonstrated that she doesn’t have empathy for younger feminists.
etatro: You certainly don’t want to self-ghettoize, now, do you?
Also, ildi, this is what Dr. Hall wrote:
She only mentioned it would be more logical to call her a tough old hen, not that she would like it.
ildi:
Most of that comes from the comments in Will’s articles. There are a couple who are demonstrated definite ageist attitudes. Some of it was demonstrated by Ms. Watson in the comment she left here.
Though there is a bit from Will insisting that Dr. Hall learn all the stuff he feels is important. If I ever see him in person I shall have to ask him all about eigenvalues, eigenvectors and the difference between a Fourier series and a Fourier transform. I am sure he will find those terms just as important as the ones he is insisting Dr. Hall learn about.
Hmmm, well lets use the replace female with black method. If we can refer to Harriet Hall as a silverback is it okay to refer to Colin Powell as a silverback? Nope, I don’t think so. My rule, referring to people as animals in a argument is bad form. Lets try to remember we are all human, shall we?
Chris, thanks on the book reference! But my reference to deaf and HoH concerns was more an analogy for the difficult decisions that parents of transgender children may have to make than an actual need for info the deaf experience.
Ildi, You’re putting up barriers where they didn’t exist. I made a side comment, saying it was irrelevant to the topic at hand. Now it is the focus of your argument against me, and quite vitriolic. You needn’t build this barrier because I think we are on the same side. I am encouraging a little bit of introspection on your part. What you wrote actually hurt my feelings. I have tremendous respect and value for the humanities, I see the value in the “queer studies,” but the fact remains that the usage of the word “queer” is still offensive in most contexts.
I am a member of the LGBT community. In the context of the culture of my department, using the word “queer” generally would be offensive. The word “queer” has a lot of negative connotations. It is used in some places still in the US and elsewhere derogatorily. I deal with a diverse group of people, coming from all socio-economic backgrounds. I have to think that the words that come out of my mouth will be heard by people who might not be hip/cool/in with the “queer studies” crowd. There very may well be gay students who come from rural Ohio, who got bullied and called a queer …. or a straight kid with gay friends/family from the same type of background …. I would instantly alienate those kids because they won’t know the back story that YOU are privy to on the reclaiming of the word queer. I would make THEM feel uncomfortable because an authority figure used the word queer. They can go be uncomfortable and learn all about queer culture in the queer studies classes, but they are before me to learn about HIV & histology & clinical research.
My interpretation of my institution’s “Principles of Community” (every place has something like it, “commitment to diversity” or “statement of inclusion” or whatever) precludes the use of that word. It has exclusionary connotations. It creates an out-group. Since Harriet is faculty at an academic hospital, I assume that she has had similar training (probably set the tone) for inclusion, diversity, and community at academic institutions.
You never addressed my assertion. That Harriet was correct in her statement. The focus on her not being hip to the queer studies crowd is both diversionary from the topic at hand, incorrect in its assertion, and a non-sequitor. The reactionary and uncharitable tone is also … militant.
What I find rather amusing about this contretemps – exhibiting some similarities with a tempest in a teapot, the rape of the lock – is the amount of egregious misinterpretation – intentional or otherwise – and histrionic butt-hurt. Reminds me of an old joke:
Seems that a man and a woman – male and female for the purists in the crowd – named Joe – who had suffered from an environmental accident of sorts during which he had lost an eye which had been replaced by a prosthesis made out of, as it happened, wood – and Susie – who had been “victimized” by the congenital deformity of a cleft palate – got to chatting one day. And, as they were both young and lonely and lustful, Joe screwed up his courage and asked Susie if she would like to go to a dance with him. To which Susie, with no small amount of enthusiasm, responded with, “W’dn I! W’dn I!”. To which Joe, cut to the quick, responded with, “Harelip! Harelip!” ….
Chris; yes, she says she would be better classified as a tough old hen, so my repeating that was not being ageist but a bit of snark since I find her current explanation for wearing the t-shirt at odds with her original explanation.
etatro: sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings; I was reacting negatively to the medicine vs. humanities comment, since I dealt with plenty of that snobbery when I worked as a psychology graduate student in the psychiatry department. I disagree that Dr. Hall was correct in that most people in the LGBT community find queer offensive. I used those wacky liberal queer studies crowd as an example since you used a faculty meeting as your example. However, that doesn’t mean that some people don’t find it offensive, and I certainly don’t use it. The context of the discussion (in my mind) was not that Dr. Hall is old and out of touch, but that she could have spent some time researching that the word has evolved in terms of level of offensiveness (as I did, since I wasn’t sure). Again, I would never use a term to anybody that I know is offensive to them, so I would never dream of calling Dr. Hall a chick, either.
mousethatroared: again, I was showing my psych roots by even using the term silverback. I definitely would have avoided it if I had realized the negative connotations. Is top dog bad, too?
@Chris,
If I recall correctly, the episode occurred in an elevator. I think that was the wrong place and I can understand her apprehension in such a situation. The guy is guilty of lack of sensitivity.
“Is top dog bad, too?”
Perhaps, yes.
By the way, I also feel the t-shirt was not warranted, nor helpful. But there is no reason to harp on it for almost a year. Other contretemps in regards to TAM have blown over much quicker, like the lack of fore thought in having a TAM Skepchick party with a bordello theme.
I would have preferred a tasteful button that says: “Do not call me a chick. I am a skeptic.” Actually, I would not mind Surly pendant with that on it.
But that is me, because I do not like wearing t-shirts or other overly causal shirts outside of gardening, and doing chores.
“I disagree that Dr. Hall was correct in that most people in the LGBT community find queer offensive.”
That is an opinion that an objective answer can be found with a well designed survey. One might exist, perhaps you can present it in your case that we conform to the language you prefer.
wieng:
Exactly. Though I would add being a bit clueless. I see no problem in telling others that was not a good idea, I have a problem with those who reacted with threats of violence to that information. That is not a lack of sensitivity, but a serious unhealthy frame of mind.
@lido – As far as I know dogs are still animals…One would think that the tendency for societies to dehumanize their opponents through language and images that equate the opponents or out groups to animals would have been discussed in psychology. It is something that we discussed in art school.
Is it so hard to stick to using the actual human attributes you are discussing?
OaringAbout – Yeah, let’s all unite by being amused that people with CLCP sometimes have speech differences.
I don’t see anything wrong with using animal images to describe human attributes. I don’t think it is dehumanizing; rather making an effort to avoid any seems to put humans in an artificially separate category from animals. Comparative psychology compares behaviors among animals (including humans) and looks for similarities and differences. However, if any animal comparisons are verboten on this blog, then I shall refrain from using any (again with special emphasis that silverback was meant as a compliment on her status, not an attempt to dehumanize an opponent).
Using the word “queer” in a queer studies class or context of humanities where the nuances of the words, its meanings, its history, and its current use by various cultures and subcultures is itself a topic of discussion — is fine. But to casually use the word “queer,” in most situations …. outside the safe confines of these very specific circumstances (be it lesbian dog grooming club, or knitting night at the bear-bar, or English/Lit./Queer studies colleges classes) is fine — where it is either itself a topic of discussion or already agreed upon terminology. When you don’t know what experiences are embedded in the grey meat behind someone’s skull, a little sensitivity is necessary and one should not use the word “queer.” The fact is, you don’t know whether “queer” is offensive to “most” LGBT. In my estimation, that its offensive to “some” or “any” is what’s important. Further — what’s MOST important (to me) is how young people will take in these things when you deal with them. I wouldn’t want to alienate any young person I deal with (I’m talking under 25). You or me using the word “queer” to describe someone’s sexuality in 99% of contexts to the uninitiated will give them the wrong impressions of our intentions and connotations. The characters on BRAVO network’s “Queer Eye” is all in the proper and positive context, probably going to the proper audience.
Using “chick” is probably not offensive to most females if you asked them about the context of the skepchick blog, but it’s still offensive in most contexts.
lidi – I’m just a commenter, It’s not my role to set rules or etiquette for this blog. My comments are just IMO.
mousethatroared said:
A complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the process inherent in the joke. Which proves my point. It isn’t that CLCP people mangle phrases – some more than others – and who should therefore be the butt of various jokes, but that others go off the rails – intentionally or otherwise – due to misinterpreting similar ones in similar cases.
And, as I think Steven Novella argued at one point, that we should be a little more charitable about interpreting the statments of our interlocutors, and to not simply react out of hurt feelings which might not be at all justified.
I also have a “problem” with writing articles for mainstream internet media about “gropings” at skeptic meetings and grousing about the perceived lack of response to her demands for more security. Rebecca made her stand by not attending TAM 2012 and by encouraging others in her group to stay away from the meeting. IMO, she, whether deliberately or not deliberately, has encouraged creeps to post filth at her, claims they are “skeptic” males and posts many of those filthy posts on her blog and on a separate “dedicated” web page. I’m calling her on this prolonged “stirring the sh!t” campaign.
Is it any wonder then, why Will and others on Rebecca’s blog have embarked on a harassment campaign against Harriet Hall, using her senior status and Dr. Hall’s lack of “purity of thought” (according to them), about feminism?
@ Oaring About: My special needs child was born with a submucous cleft palate, had feeding/swallowing difficulties and multiple ear infections/aspiration pneumonia episodes. I think your *clever joke* was not “so clever.
How much of this comment thread would be left if you removed all the petty arguments over word usage? Does anyone here belive anyone else is purposely discrimatory? Is anyone advocating any group have less rights or deserver any sort of crime committed against them? Find comman ground where you can and agree to disagree on everything else.
mousethatroared: issues with my ‘nym? I didn’t think it was that hard to spell… Oh, and in the old-school version of the definition of silverback, no, there would be nothing wrong with calling Colin Powell a silverback, as he is a high-status elder. However, if any animal attribute comparisons derail threads, then there is no point in continuing to use them (and you seem to comment a lot here).
lilady said:
Sorry to hear that you have that to deal with. But I think you’re conflating a recognition of some limitations of a particular congenital “deformity” with a moral condemnation of it. While it is entirely understandable why you might be, of course, somewhat more sensitive to the latter, that hardly seems sufficient reason to think that that joke hinged on, or in any way manifested that.
Seems to me we all suffer from “infirmities” of one sort or another from which we also derive some illustrative or informative benefits – “death” being a biggie and on which I might recommend “Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates: Using Philosophy and Jokes to Explore Life, Death, The Afterlife, and Everything in Between” [Cathcart & Klein] – and that being hypersensitive about the former tends to preclude the latter.
etrato: still digging around on the topic of queer; PFLAG has this to say about the term:
sorry, clumsy fingers.
ildi: “mousethatroared: issues with my ‘nym? I didn’t think it was that hard to spell…”
ildi: “sorry, clumsy fingers.”
Anyway, do you have survey data showing your preferred vocabulary choices are standard among your demographic? In order to conform to your requested vocabulary, we need to see evidence that it as commonly accepted as you claim.
@ Oaring About:
“Sorry to hear that you have that to deal with. But I think you’re conflating a recognition of some limitations of a particular congenital “deformity” with a moral condemnation of it. While it is entirely understandable why you might be, of course, somewhat more sensitive to the latter, that hardly seems sufficient reason to think that that joke hinged on, or in any way manifested that.
Seems to me we all suffer from “infirmities” of one sort or another from which we also derive some illustrative or informative benefits – “death” being a biggie and on which I might recommend “Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through Those Pearly Gates: Using Philosophy and Jokes to Explore Life, Death, The Afterlife, and Everything in Between” [Cathcart & Klein] – and that being hypersensitive about the former tends to preclude the latter.”
Yes, the death of my son, peacefully in his sleep, from another of his congenital “deformities” is a “biggie” in my life. Thanks for your *empathy*.
OaringAbout “A complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the process inherent in the joke. Which proves my point. It isn’t that CLCP people mangle phrases – some more than others – and who should therefore be the butt of various jokes, but that others go off the rails – intentionally or otherwise – due to misinterpreting similar ones in similar”
LOL, actually my response was about four times more charitable than my first inclination. Although, possibly still not charitable enough.
I’m not sure if you are aware of my family history. My son was born in China with a CLCP. He was found by police in an unspecified location. Our best guess is that his parent’s left him because they could not provide for a child with CLCP. Because of the severity of his cleft, it’s possible that he may have died without specialized feeding equipment. He spent the first two years in the orphanage and received his first surgery (very well done) in China. He had hearing loss, part of which was corrected with simple ear tub surgery. He had severe speech delay, which have been mostly corrected with extensive speech therapy and three painful surgeries, one of which required bone to be removed from his hip. Also, my niece, similar story, only she spent four years in an orphanage is fifteen now and has maybe 50% intelligibility in speech.
So I think these kids were not “victimized” by being born with a cleft and that I’d prefer if you left their condition out of the center piece shocker joke that demonstrates your point.
Yes, I saw and agreed with SN’s point about being charitable. But I think that pushing buttons to make your point may not be the best use of people’s good will or patience.
ildi – sorry about the misspelling. It’s more an eyesight issue than an nym issue. Sometimes I can’t find the glasses.
lilady said:
Sorry to hear that – but that, and five bucks, will likely buy you a coffee at Starbucks.
But methinks you’re using that loss and that condition of another child of yours to garner more sympathy than you’re entitled to – or than the subject of the OP or my original response to it justifies. I happen to have lost both parents – one is understandable, two is just plain carelessness – not long ago, but that hardly prevents me, at least, from deriving some humour, if of the gallows, from the subject of death.
Ildi – You demonstrated my point. PFLAG is an example of a safe place that I was referring to. When interacting inclusively with a diverse group of people, you cannot assume that the person you’re dealing with knows and understands PFLAG’s sensibilities. Odds are, they don’t know or or share PFLAG’s perspective … even if they fall into the LGBT community. I really don’t like digging around that topic. It frustrates me that I have clearly demonstrated that this term DOES in fact offend some people, and there are very good reasons to avoid using it, you (and others) refuse to acknowledge any culpability or engage in any self-examination on how you’re treating other people.
I would like for you and others (Rebbeca Watson and “Will” from skepchick included) to acknowledge that Harriet was correct and that browbeating her for not being “in” with the lingo of the PFLAG or queer-studies crowd is wrong. It’s wrong morally to browbeat her for this, it’s wrong strategically for the goals of the skeptical community, it’s wrong as a straw-man logical fallacy, and it’s wrong rhetorically to distract the point at hand.
I haven’t read all of these comments, nor have I read any other related posts. As someone who is skeptical, but not a card-carrying “Skeptic”, it appears that the various skeptical denominations/factions are having their first holy war, with crusaders, inquisitors, martyrs….the works. I do sympathize with HH for what seems to be a groundless and unnecessary attack. HRH’s comments are noteworthy.
There are far too many people eager to grab any opportunity to proudly take offense and nurse a grudge, deriding others for their insensitivity while disowning their own enormously insensitive and egotistical assumptions. Taking offense at others’ comments and actions is merely a choice, but is it based on actual evidence or merely an emotional knee-jerk reaction? This is a question the offended (especially self-labelled skeptics) should ask themselves honestly. Every day we are all faced with this choice, multiple times. One may choose to verify that offense was actually intended before puffing up with pride and indignation. Absent solid evidence one may choose to assume the best instead of the worst. It all boils down to choice. Choosing to be offended may appear to license to all sorts of rude and crude behavior. Maybe that’s what some people need to feel liberated and empowered, I just don’t know.
The flip side of insensitivity is oversensitivity. Perhaps the skeptic motto should be “bring your intellect, leave your emotional baggage behind”. Cheers!
MikeyC:
So what’s the disconnect? The guy has the opinion that the picketers are lying or mistaken about their direct experience of discrimination. Furthermore, he expends far more time and energy coming to the defense of those accused of discrimination than he does trying to draw any attention to actual incidences of actual discrimination. This leads members of the group, who have firsthand experience of this discrimination, to no longer consider the guy of much of an advocate for their cause of equal treatment. And if that’s where the story ended, then, not a problem. The problem is when the exec expresses confusion at why his black coworkers no longer treat him as an ally in their efforts to address discrimination at the workplace.
In the case here, Dr. Hall broadcast an opinion that her “harassment-free” experience trumped and undermined the numerous reports of harassment from others. This directly de-legitimized the problem with sexism (and suggested means for addressing it) to which many women were trying to draw attention. In doing so, she lost a lot of standing with a lot of women who’d previously held her in high esteem.
The only confused party seems to be Dr. Hall, who remains incensed by this loss of respect. You chastise me for “getting my panties in a twist”? Did you notice who’s the one writing the high-traffic, high-visibility open-letters?
Dandover:
Newsflash: Even if the level of harassment at TAM was no different than the level of harassment elsewhere, that does not make TAM a “safe” place for women. A place doesn’t become “safe” by meeting the standard of “just as shitty as average”. A “safe place” would describe a place where all women can go with such a low-level expectation of harassment/sexist treatment that it’s not even on their radar. The evidence STRONGLY suggests that while modern skeptical gatherings may feel like such a place for a select few women (particularly those who have become prominent and authoritative figures themselves), there’s a long way to go to make it feel that way for all women. In the face of direct testimonies from women who have been made to feel *quite* uncomfortable at such events, it does not reflect well on those “select few” to trumpet just how safe they personally feel.
mousethatroared said:
Why should I be? Have you blogged about it extensively? Been on the cover of Time as a poster-girl for CLCP? While I certainly sympathize with what you and the kids with that condition have to deal with, that is still entirely beside the point of the joke. Which, since a few seem to lost sight of it, was to point out the tendency of all of us – at one time or another – to misinterpret the statements of others, either because it was “badly” phrased by others or because of our own biases and limitations.
I put the word in quotes for a reason, to highlight the fact that we’re all dealt a set of genetic “cards” – you know, one half of the nature-nurture dichotomy – some of which are a little more problematic than others to deal with. “Their condition” is a paradigm for the condition of all of us. But maybe you’re too close to one tree to see the forest ….
You think my intent was to “push your buttons”? And that is your “charitable response”? You might want to try stepping away from that particular tree a little ….
wales said:
Well said – quite right.
All of the histrionics over some “bad werdz” seems not all that far removed from the egregious self-aggrandizement of Muslims going on the warpath over some freaking cartoons. Maybe somewhat understandable at least in the religious – in skeptics, not so much.
People keep talking about Harriet Hall’s age and status in the skeptic community and, therefore, how her T-shirt was a sign that she was dismissing the experience of others while not knowing what those experiences are because she is unlikely to experience the same behavior because of her age and status. Basically, can’t know because too old and too important a figure in the community to know.
Here’s a tip folks. People like Geek Goddess, Dr. Hall and I didn’t spring full grown out of the head of Zeus like Athena. And, organized skeptic and atheist activism didn’t start when Rebecca and the Skepchicks hit the scene. In fact, CFI was founded 37 years ago when I was 20 years old. Our participation with our fellow secularists and skeptics started long before Skepchick was formed. Furthermore, there is no evidence that after menopause there is a selective dementia that sets in which erases all memory of sexism that a woman has had to endure through the years.
@ OaringAbout:
“But methinks you’re using that loss and that condition of another child of yours to garner more sympathy than you’re entitled to – or than the subject of the OP or my original response to it justifies. I happen to have lost both parents – one is understandable, two is just plain carelessness – not long ago, but that hardly prevents me, at least, from deriving some humour, if of the gallows, from the subject of death.”
Obviously, you misinterpreted some of my prior posts.
What condition of “another child of yours (mine)?”
I am Harriet Hall’s age and both of my parents are dead. My one child survived for 28 years only because of the excellent intensive care he received by competent, caring medical care specialists. My one female surviving child is 42 years old, healthy, and has broken through the glass ceiling in a male-dominated field, assisted by the kind unselfish mentoring of older “silverbacks” who are male and female.
Still defending your crass “joke” about people born with cleft palates/cleft lips, eh, OaringAbout?
lilady said:
Yes, I did. The way you had phrased your comments led me to believe you were talking of two children. But does the conversation turn on that point?
It wasn’t about “people born with CLCP”, but about people who misinterpret the statements of other people for one reason or another. Maybe you too need to try stepping away from that single tree so you can see the rest of the forest ….
Rebecca has the obligatory “last word” post up at her blog. Her minions are again acting with faux outrage over the T-Shirt. That is very funny in itself, but more revealing is their attempt to justify Rebecca’s snark and childish post. If Rebecca and her drones want to rage tears over that light-hearted T-Shirt protest (they still don’t get that it was a protest against their bullying and harassment of Grothe, and their “with us or against us” playbook), then let them fester in their little corner of their dwindling community.
The thing I find most amusing is that they have the nerve to get upset over this T-Shirt message, and yet they are completely fine with the vitriol and abuse thrown around sites such as Pharyngula. Oh, and then there is Greg Laden, of course.
Anyway, tell you what would send out a big message to these trolls – EVERYBODY who goes to TAM wears a Harriet Hall-style T-shirt. They just might get the message the wider community looks down on their antics.
OaringAbout said….
“Yes, I did. The way you had phrased your comments led me to believe you were talking of two children. But does the conversation turn on that point?”
Really…OaringAbout?
My two comments about my one child….
“I, like Dr. Hall, managed to raise two children (one with extraordinary “special needs”), along with a career in health care and along with a 36-year “career” in advocacy on behalf of developmentally disabled children and adults. What have Rebecca and her groupies done to advance skepticism…after this schism of their own making?”
And this…
“@ Oaring About: My special needs child was born with a submucous cleft palate, had feeding/swallowing difficulties and multiple ear infections/aspiration pneumonia episodes. I think your *clever joke* was not “so clever.
Still defending your crass “joke” about people born with cleft palates/cleft lips, eh, OaringAbout?
OaringAbout – Oh well, if you equate my talking about my family history and why I thought your joke ill considered as the equivalent of Muslim rioting over pictures of Allah*…I doubt it’s worth my time to explain further.
*Isn’t that kinda like Godwin’s law?
lilady said:
I said that I had misinterpreted what you said. What do you expect – for me to fall on my sword over a triviality?
It wasn’t about “people born with CLCP”, but about people who misinterpret the statements of other people for one reason or another. Maybe you too need to try stepping away from that single tree so you can see the rest of the forest ….
“Straining at a gnat, while swallowing the camel whole ….”
CaptainJaneway, I have removed the bookmark to that blog. I am going to stick that flounce.
Sigh. I am not sure that is constructive. I would like to find a way to have young women go to TAM and other skeptical events. I like wales’ comment: “bring your intellect, leave your emotional baggage behind”. If I was going to have a pin, it would probably be “Have an open and civil mind.”
@Wales – The title of this blog is still Science Based Medicine. The skeptics can be as sensitive or tough as they like, but part of medicine is still having sensitivity to patients emotional needs and that should include handling diverse people and diverse health conditions sensitively.
Personally, I think how to best do that is a valid point of discussion, although we might not always agree on the answers.
@Chris,
It’s funny how over time, narratives change, isn’t it?
Much was made of how a “skeptic” had listened to Rebecca all day say she didn’t want to be hit on at conferences, and then the dirty misogynist immediately ignored that request. There was never any evidence provided “elevatorguy” was a “skeptic” or was even there for the meeting and wasn’t just another drunk hotel guest leaving the bar at 4 a.m. (I was called a misogynist on pharyngula for even asking such an absurd question)
“Skepchicks et al” then used the elevator incident to claim there was systemic misogyny/harassment at meetings and in the “community”. (that and accusations against another man who turned out to be innocent of taking pics up skirts…as well as a “bunch” of un-sourced threats credited to “skeptics”) No one should have to deal with threats, but one should be certain the source of those threats before they declare them systemic of an entire “community”. And grown adults needed specific guidelines on how to behave at such meetings via “harassment policies”. Col Hall indicated her experience at meetings was different – with a T-shirt.
Rebecca probably should have said “hey guys, don’t do that to me” as many a woman commenter and blogger objected that she presumed to speak for them.
I find when people are reduced to arguing about the use of “many” or “most” or “some” they really didn’t have an argument to begin with.
@Col. Hall, first, thanks for your service to our country; second, thanks for your service to skepticism; third, thanks for the hard work and perseverance in busting through those glass ceilings for women everywhere (even if they don’t appreciate it as they stand on your shoulders); lastly, great T-shirt.
@ OaringAbout: Got any more crass jokes about people born with disabilities. How about people who have “fits”, are “crippled” or who are “retards”?
Bring them all on OaringAbout…I promise you I’ll wipe the floor with you.
I can’t believe someone thought that the solution for everyone to come together on this thread was a (terribly unfunny) joke about disability.
@MKandefer
You’re missing the point entirely. A victim of harassment has every right to take offense, and the offenders ought to be held accountable for their actions. I think we all agree on that. Where this went off the rails was when the victims lashed out at TAM and declared they would not be attending TAM because it was allegedly not safe or welcoming. Again, isolated incidents do not make TAM unsafe or unwelcoming. The plural of anecdote is not data. I find it odd that I have to repeat this here.
Coming to the conclusion that the whole of TAM is unsafe for women because of isolated incidents, which could occur anywhere and are by no means unique to TAM, is not “sensible behavior”. The T-shirt was a rebuttal to this insensible behavior. It was not an attempt to comfort victims with statistics. It was not an attack against victims of harassment. It was a debunking of a ridiculous and unsupportable notion.
lilady said:
I figure you should try to differentiate between the characters in a joke and the meaning of it. I would suggest picking up a book or two on the topic, including the one I mentioned earlier.
As you did in our conversation today? Though, out of curiousity, is that supposed to be some sort of physical threat? I wonder how you would have reacted if some guy had directed the same comment to Watson ….
LiLady – I suspect OA is just looking for attention. A friend of mine used to describe folks like that in these terms. “Love me, Hate me, Just don’t ignore me.”
No threat OaringAbout…a “promise” that I will wipe the floor with you on this blog.
Well, well…Will’s “final response”. Methinks that Will realizes that his arguments were untenable and that he was used by Rebecca and her groupies…
http://skepchick.org/2013/02/a-final-response-to-harriet-hall/
@mousethatroared: Enjoy!
Nursery Rhyme of Scholasticism
William of Occam, oh where have you been?
“I’ve been out dancing on the head of a pin.”
What do you conclude, now your task is complete?
“It’s fine for the angels, but hard on the feet.”
—Sara Kreindler
mousethatroared said:
And some could say that that is just a transparent attempt to dismiss the person so as not to have to deal with the content of their arguments. Much like spurious and specious aspersions about being a sexist or a misogynist ….
“That women should not just stay home and take care of kids.” I think what you mean is that women should not be limited to staying home and taking care of kids. I totally agree.
I seem to recall that Linda Hirshman said that women should not stay home and take care of kids a few years ago (8 or so?), maybe in American Prospect magazine. Her argument was that women who “opt out” of the workforce by choice are undoing decades of feminist progress getting women into the workforce. So women who want to be primary caregivers to their children are traitors to The Cause. This sparked one of the unfortunate recent major larger-cultural dustups known as the “Mommy Wars.” This is where women who work dismiss women who stay home with kids as ignorant layabouts, and women who stay home with kids dismiss women who work as bad mothers. Everyone got really upset and shouted past each other.
@ OaringAbout: Hurry on over to Will’s latest blog…he could use some help. Did you happen to “notice” that Will and Rebecca Watson have abandoned you?
How about an apology for your crass “joke” about people born with a congenital disability?
etatro:
I don’t know where you’re getting this. The discussion was not about whether some people are offended by the term or not, and not whether one should go about calling anyone queer willy nilly. No one is saying that. I’m merely saying that there is plenty of evidence to indicate based on a very cursory perusal of the internet that there seem to be a significant number of people who self-identify as queer, enough so that PFLAG discusses it, that there are TV shows such as Queer as Folk and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy that include it in the title, and that there are a myriad of humanities programs offering courses and minor in queer studies, to countermand Hall’s statement that most people in the community find it offensive.
@ OaringAbout: I recall making a flippant comment about obese people on another forum. Another poster came on and told us she was morbidly obese and shared personal stuff like how difficult it was physically to be obese and how frequently people slag and humiliate her in public and such-like. So I apologized profusely and thanked her for sharing, and when I happened to meet her in RL, much awkwardness was avoided because I had acknowledged her basic humanity, and that I was wrong.
People have shared highly personal information, like raising disabled kids, and the death of a child. Now we all know that this is the internet, and people get slapped around on the internet. That said, what you need to do is apologize. Unreservedly. And then everybody can move on.
That’s what grownups do.
….aaaaaand I’m out. Thanks folks. Jeez. Absolutely unbelievable. At least this has been a reminder that we all are, after all, human. It’s just a sad thing to note that evolution made us just that and nothing more.
I can’t believe a group of skeptics has managed to engender in me vitriol. It is a sad day indeed.
lilady said:
Reading it now, although it looks rather too long. But what makes you think that they have “abandoned” me? I’m no particular friend of Watson, although I have defended her against some egregious criticisms in The Pit, and I’m rather skeptical about Will’s position, particularly as an anthropologist and particularly for his article touting Boas.
And while I would have put my oar in the water there in any case – so to speak – I’ve been banned for questioning their “conventional wisdom”. Had even posted a comment to an earlier thread of Will’s before confirming that status, but which I might as well reprise here:
Seems to be an awful lot of people who are unclear on the concept that different attributes can be based on varying degrees of influence from both nature and nurture. And further varying substantially across any given population.
Maybe after you apologize to me for uncharitably and egregiously misinterpreting me. But don’t count on it.
@David Gorski
Following nybgrus out of the room, dazed, saddened and truly jaded, I have to ask, isn’t it time to close this thread?
The 112,622 words written since Dr. Novella’s second post have offered no new thoughts and shed no new light. It’s as if everyone’s hanging around waiting for someone to go over the cliff and throw down some truly coarse epithet.
It’s hard to believe that we’re all part of the same community, that we share a common philosophy rooted in science and an ethic of the equality. It sounds more like a city council meeting in Mogadishu.
ildi:
Excellent! So you’ll present those scientifically verified survey results that show your preferred vocabulary is common with a specific demographic. With that proof we will then conform to your particular word choice.
pharmavixen said:
Apologize for what? What evidence and proof have you or anyone else provided that my joke was, for example, supposedly “ableist”? Apart from your own idiosyncratic and highly subjective interpretations of the word and the joke?
Seems to bear uncomfortably more than few similarities with the accusations of sexism directed in Harriet Hall’s direction the last while. And with those directed at Michael Shermer over his “[atheist activism], it’s more of a guy thing” initiated by Ophelia Benson’s hatchet-job of him in that Free Inquiry article last August [CSH: would really help if you provided publication dates]. But curious, and somewhat apropos, that no one – and I mean absolutely no one; and I’ve asked repeatedly – has been prepared to show or prove how that statement of his qualifies as sexism by the dictionary definition, i.e., exhibiting discrimination – don’t recollect him saying that women weren’t allowed to engage in atheist activism of any kind – or that it was “promoting stereotypes” as simply noting some disparities hardly qualifies as that.
Really don’t know where people get the idea that they can make all sorts of empty and egregious aspersions on people’s comments or character without offering a shred of evidence to justify their claims. Skeptics? Ha! ….
I tried reading Will’s final say, and it was brain-grating. Hall made the most obviously generalized quip that she doesn’t want to be judged by anatomy, and Will can’t understand the larger point being made but instead tries to use that as evidence that Hall doesn’t understand gender vs. sex. Take it as literally as you can, eh Will?
He previously made the straw man statement that these branded conferences do not “erase straight white men’s voices” as if anyone had been so ridiculous as to claim that. On the later post, some commenter named BlackCat (who seems to agree with Will in general) said that Harriet Hall’s shirt “basically erases other women’s experiences”. Will responded to that comment, so presumably he read it, but didn’t offer any correction to a supporter who made a statement so closely matching the logic of his own false mockery.
It’s no surprise that he and others on his side also completely missed the point of the “queer” comment. Will is arguing so much about Hall failing to split hairs to his preference on a lot of common words, and yet his view is that there is absolutely no problem throwing around a word previously taken as a slur (and still taken as such by some), because whatevs, that’s how a lot of us like to use it. His objections to the finer points of language seem to hinge entirely on whether or not the possibly-offended people share his opinions. What do you think is a higher percentage? Gays who still think “queer” is offensive, or males born without penises? Will argues that even the slightest exception makes generalizations ignorant, but only when he wants to use that as an argument.
Having been called out on the absurdity of his fake breastfeeding argument, he also offers up female-to-male trans’ being able to breast feed for real as a reason why breastfeeding can’t be called a female trait! Does he really expect us to take that argument seriously? You can’t say that cars have four wheels, because if you remove two of them then they don’t.
And what the heck is with Rebecca? I know we can’t always reply to every response we get on the Internet. I certainly don’t always end up following up on my comments. But you should never PLAN to do that, and you sure shouldn’t essentially announce in your post that you won’t be reading any responses or addressing them.
CC:
I thought that was humorous for one particular reason. One of the comments made the statement that Dr. Hall does not like being corrected or something similar. His reaction to that breastfeeding comment was very amusing. Oh, the irony!
Did the young man in Oregon who had a baby actually breastfeed his baby? Yes, I know he was born female, but that does not mean that he actually kept the lactation parts of his anatomy. By the way, the better argument is that breast milk is available from women who produce too much milk. There are actual breast milk banks.
Well we would know if ildi would provide us the results of a well conducted scientific survey on that particular word. Because we are not the crowd to accept a “very cursory perusal of the internet.”
I’m sorry, but if she posted an article there I could not see it (yes, I went and peeked). Was it removed?
Actually, I’m worried about her. I have spoken to her in person when she gave a local talk, and she did not seem quite like she is now. She has had lots of backlash, and I don’t care what anyone thinks of her opinions, no one deserves the threats she has received. By the way, I actually remember things I did when I was young, and so I cannot forever condemn her to present actions.
Alas, skeptics like to eat their kind…when they don’t have anything better to do.
I recommend a solution: Meaningful activism. Concentrate on going after the Really Bad Guys. Like the naturopaths, anti-vaxers, and the anti-fluoridationists. This does wonders for camaraderie.
That needs to change. And I like your solution.
Linda Rosa said:
Quite true. Although that is, of course, not particularly unique to skeptics – part of the human condition – but one would think that skeptics might be a little more immune to dogma of one sort or another which frequently manifests itself in intolerance. For instance, Massimo Pigliucci had this observation on the birth of Atheism Plus:
While that was more within the context of atheism than skepticism, recent events suggest similar motivations and behaviours in the latter as well.
Certainly more than a few benefits in all of those initiatives. However, as it seems those issues are easier for most people to subscribe to, there is, I think, a tendency to focus on them to the exclusion of ones that might be more important though hidden and structural, but which naturally tend to produce some degree of friction – not to say significant amounts of heat. Tends to be quite a bit easier to point out – if not pluck out – the motes in the eyes of one’s brothers – those in various “out-groups” – than it is to deal with the logs in our own eyes – those in the “in-groups”.
Which is, of course, a substantial part of PZ Myers’ Reply to Steven Novella – which has more or less ignited many of the recent flame-outs – during which he said:
While many have offered some apparently sound reasons to “delimit that scope”, one can’t help but have some sympathy for at least some of Myers’ arguments. However, in an entirely typical case of refusing to concede that the sauce for the goose also goes well with the gander, Myers and company also seem to “react with emotional fury to any attempt” to focus the lens of skepticism on some of the more dogmatic aspects of both atheism and feminism – as seems entirely evident in the recent attacks on Harriet Hall, Michael Shermer, and Ben Radford over the issue of sexism.
@baldape
I was unaware that there is a substantial portion of the population who believe that the world, on average, is a manifestly unsafe place for women. I feel sorry for people who believe that, especially those who are women. It must be terrifying. I wonder if this delusion is covered by any condition listed in the DSM?
Lilady – Thanks! Since it’s a nursery rhyme, I will have to read it to my kids…and then spend the next 1/2 hour explaining…(Who’s this Occam guy? What’s a razor? Why would he do that?). Which will give us something constructive to do. A good thing since they’re off school and lost all their screen time due to breaking the “Thou shall not use large amounts of scotch tape on the new dining room chairs, even if you are building a cool fort” commandment.:)
In this thought experiment, how was it established that there is discrimination in their hiring practices? If it’s in dispute, and the ‘evidence’ consisted of a handful of anecdotes, wouldn’t it be perfectly relevant for the senior Widgets employee to make his differing opinion known?
Solely for the purpose of my own curiosity there is a question which I wish to pose here, however I am slightly concerned that it will be seen as off-topic. I was born female, I am female and I identify as female, however a few year’s ago I had a liver transplant from a male donor – hence I’m now about 10% male (I’m guessing the percentage, feel free to correct this). In effect, this means I have had surgery which resulted in me being a bit more male than I was before, so does this mean I now technically fulfill a definition such as transgender or intersex ? And if there is not a word for this situation, I intend to find one and then ensure that everybody uses it correctly when defining me! (I’m kidding, of course. Personally I would find it quite creepy.)
While I agree about the degeneration of this particular thread and the circular firing squad that it seems to have become since Steve last tried to intervene, just because people are arguing in a manner that strikes me as counterproductive is not, in general, a reason to close a thread on a post that is barely two days old. Comments on posts normally automatically close at 90 days to cut down on the problem of comment spam on old posts; there has to be a really compelling reason to shut a thread down after only two days.
More importantly, I have too much respect for Harriet to shut down this thread unless she asks me to. She is one of only three of us remaining on SBM who have been here since the beginning and are still posting every week. She has through her prodigious work for SBM earned a lot of leeway, and she’ll have it.
ConspicuousCarl:
What was the point of the queer comment? Let’s see what Dr. Hall said again:
Well, her example failed. It’s best not to go on about a field of study if you haven’t kept up with it, and she demonstrates that by giving an example that is wrong.
Chris:
It’s ok to say queer. Really. The argument was not that queer is a common self-identifier among the LGBT community but that most people in that ‘specific demographic’ are offended by the word.
Ah, I see, you are the sort of crowd to quote-mine as well as misrepresent people’s statements. Excellent! Let me repeat. Dr. Hall made the statement that most people in the LGBT community find the word queer offensive. If the word was so offensive, a cursory perusal of the internet would not turn up academic-type references to it all over the internet. We would not find national organizations like PFLAG discussing the evolving definition of queer and who is self-identifying as one. You are welcome to your hyperskepticism, but I consider this sufficient evidence that Dr. Hall is in fact incorrect in her statement.
This thread has been a fascinating read, truly, if a very sad one. The War of the Trolls? No, nothing so grand, just a lot of kippies pecking at each other’s rear ends like battery hens, because they are bored (literally) out of their minds.
Haven’t y’all got something to do with your lives? Go clean the toilet maybe, or wash the curtains? Read a good book, take some photos of a sunset, visit someone that’s lonely? Bake some scones for someone else? Help an old person with house repairs? What a waste this all is, sitting in a mental cage at your computers and peck-peck-pecking at each other.
I’m know I’m not a “true” skeptic, being religious, so thank God I don’t feel I have to defend my credentials because I don’t have any. But if I may dare to say it to those who are way ahead of me in the Skeptic Stakes, it seems to me some of you “true skeptics”, even if you reject faith and hope, need to weaken and get some charity. Also a sense of proportion and a sense of humour would help.
Any woo-meister reading this thread will be chortling with glee to see his/her enemies at each others throats like this. Divide = conquer.
Huh? You know I started reading the discussion cause, I wanted to learn more about trans* issues (reason way up thread) It seemed that there’s a lot of heat around an issue, it’s good to read how people thoughts or even bickering about it. In all sincerity I did try to be civil and opening minded, but I did also share opposing views and push back when I thought OaringAbout was being unduly inflammatory at the expense of my child and many others.
And now I’m being told by nybrgus, windriven, Kathy – folks who’s opinion I respect, that the whole discussion is pointless bickering that I am one of many who need to get a life.
Kinda a bummer. Must go to FB and look at pictures of fluffy kittens and goofy dogs now.
@Dr. Gorski
I should have put a smiley at the end of the ‘shut down the thread’ sentence. I meant it as much as a rhetorical device to suggest to my truly esteemed fellow commenters that the discussion had gone off the tracks and become an argument about how many nits make a gobbet, than as a plea to snip the thread.
At least I think I did
@mousethatroared
Here we go again. Yet *another* false dichotomy. Not all kittens are fluffy, you know. Some don’t even have any fur at all! And I’ve seen plenty of well-trained, intelligent dogs — some even help visually impaired persons navigate the world. And don’t even get me started on the conflation of “male cat” with tom and “female cat” with queen! Some people have no respect for the differently-speciesed. *Harumph*.
How many nits do make a gobbet, anyway?
Chris:
I was referring to Rebecca’s comment here.
I know I said I would leave, but one thing really stuck in my craw:
Forget about the uncharitable interpretation of Dr. Hall’s statement. That is evidence brought to bear? Frackin’ seriously?
Because then the popularity of shows like Jackass means I can civilly call people a “jackass,” or Redneck Rehab and Mud Lovin’ Rednecks means I can jovially call a person a redneck and expect the majority of folk to not be offended. Or perhaps Hillbilly Rennaissance (in production)? Or maybe Cougar Town, or Hot Sluts? I won’t even get into the “N” word shows or the usage of it in popular rap culture and songs. But I will say that despite how apparently popular that term is and how often it is used in much of the music I hear and in fact in much of the conversation that is around me in clinic (I am currently working in an underserved high school clinic) if I were to start bandying around the word (especially since I currently live in the Southern US) I don’t think it would go over very well, now would it? But hey, maybe I should try it and when someone does get offended I can just argue “Well, hey now! The lexicon has changed! Listen to all the songs that use it! Your people have reclaimed it! Clearly, you are not up to speed on your knowledge of these topics and should educate yourself, my….. [fill in the blank]”
So yeah, great “evidence” that clearly the lexicon has changed and Dr. Hall is so off base in her – still well worded – distaste for the term and concern for offense. And obviously that utterly discredits the rest of her message. How incredibly, utterly, ridiculous and asinine.
@mouse:
There is indeed much useful information to be gleaned from this thread no doubt. And there are those who would genuinely contribute and those (such as myself and WLU and windriven just to name a few in addition to yourself) who would be interested to learn. But my above comment is reflective of just a single example of the derailing of the utility of learning about it. One troll is easy enough to deal with and the rest of us can talk around it and use it as a learning experience. But the incredible amount of vitriol from so many so-called skeptical commenters makes at least me unwilling to devote the time to sift through it all. I am busy enough as is. I don’t have the time or energy (or desire) to glean the wheat from the chaff here (though I have read Geek Goddess and Chris’ posts as they are informative indeed). This is merely a reflection of what happens when a thread is swamped with trollery. The thing that makes it sad is that it isn’t trollery but a bunch of uncharitable self ascribed skeptics, rather than a bunch of Th1Th2, Sid Offit, auggie, stanmrak, etc that have descended upon us here. The latter can be much more easily dismissed and talked around and about. The former is what saddens me and makes me lack desire to continue engaging.
As a side note, this is why I read PZ Myers regularly but never read the comments or comment there. Absolutely not worth the time. The joy of commenting here at SBM and NeuroLogica comes from the lively, interesting (and interested), genuinely skeptical, kind, generous, and otherwise learned discourse that tends to predominate here. I have been proven wrong and learned. I believe I have actually been able to contribute in kind. With threads like these I have to struggle hard to learn and certainly feel like anything I write would be in vain – either from those reading or being drowned out by those writing.
Hence, I am “out” (with the current exception of addressing you specifically since I feel you deserve it and it would actually be worthwhile).
Ildi-
From Rebecca Watson: “I will echo a few other commenters and point out that your “queer” statement doesn’t do you any favors in convincing anyone that your knowledge of these topics is anything close to approaching Will’s.”
You: “not some people. If most people in the LGBT community found it offensive we wouldn’t have a ton of universities offering courses and minors and student groups calling it that – even if it is in the lowly humanities end of the spectrum – because universities in general tend to be PC when it comes to how people self-label. You, of course, are free to stay in your part of the ivory tower way above the ghetto.”
From Audpicc: “f you are so out of touch with LGBTQ people and ideas that you think our chosen word to identify ourselves and our movement is “a term most people in the LGBT community consider offensive” then I seriously doubt your knowledge of gender studies. It sounds pretty ignorant to me, and shows me that you are not willing to educate yourself on queer topics enough to get even this simple thing right.”
This is where I am getting it. It is demonstrably wrong. Some introspection is warranted. The fact is — people within the LGBT community find the word “queer” offensive. Only when you are dealing with a very narrow audience would it not be. Only in very specific contexts coming from specific sources is it not offensive. You go to Smalltown, Anywhere, USA and use the word “queer”, the biggots will know what you’re talking about and the LGBT kids will get a sinking feeling that there’s something wrong with them. Harriet was correct. Rebecca Watson, Audpicc, and you are wrong. This line of attack in the context of Harriet’s broader point has no content-validity. These Don Quixote’s need to find a real giant to slay.
nybgrus:
(rinse and repeat) Funny how you ignore the second part of my sentence that you quoted. Point me to academic programs on jackass studies or courses on redneck theory. Also, the point was not whether people in the LGBT community wanted to be called queer, the point was whether most people in the LGBT community found the word offensive. Dr. Hall is castigating Will for using the word as an example of why he shouldn’t lecture her on word usage, when she is the one out of touch.
@Dandover
You said:
“You’re missing the point entirely. A victim of harassment has every right to take offense, and the offenders ought to be held accountable for their actions. I think we all agree on that.”
We do.
“Where this went off the rails was when the victims lashed out at TAM and declared they would not be attending TAM because it was allegedly not safe or welcoming. Again, isolated incidents do not make TAM unsafe or unwelcoming. The plural of anecdote is not data. I find it odd that I have to repeat this here.”
I’m not sure if you think you need to repeat this to me, but if you had read what I wrote, I did request additional background information to help inform my opinion. This would fall under that. Thanks for providing it. Though, do you have a source to read on this as I have only heard the SGU podcast about TAM and sexism, Rebecca’s follow up, and it didn’t seem to paint the picture you paint.
Some relevant points include:
“The majority of the people at TAM are very friendly and accepting.”
“The JREF faces many challenges when booking speakers and is not purposely excluding women”
“Carrie and I both took pains to declare that there is no overt, conscious effort to be sexist and exclude women, and that the main hurdle at this point is to eliminate unintended behaviors that might drive away women and minorities, and to focus more on promoting women and minorities who are gaining prominence”
http://skepchick.org/2009/08/sexism-skepticism-on-sgu-recap/
This does not seem to be an overt charge of an unsafe or unwelcoming environment, but a recognition that it is a problem with a minority of participants (which does not entail a minor problem).
Do I have the wrong TAM? Are Rebecca and Carrie just voicing the problem correctly (i.e., that it is only a small percentage of attendees that make the environment inhospitable to women), while the majority of claims were of an outrageous nature? Is the a change from an earlier position by Rebecca and Carrie that was more extreme?
Consider me new to the problem, and in need of catch up. You seem to know more about the lead up to TAM than I do. Who made these false charges that Harriet was specifically responding to? It doesn’t seem that everyone talking about it was making outrageous claims, and some have acknowledged it as a problem with a minority of participants (and not with TAM itself). I can sympathize with those that thought this way and saw Harriet’s shirt was addressing them as it isn’t a targeted message. It doesn’t say, “Those who think TAM as a whole is unsafe and unwelcoming to women are wrong” (not a catchy slogan I know), It says, “I feel safe and welcome at TAM”. Rightly or wrongly some have interpreted it as attacking their concerns, concerns we both agree are legitimate. Language is a phrasing of one’s subjective thoughts and our thoughts are not always conveyed to others correctly. At such a sensitive time for those who did have legitimate concerns, getting the message right is crucial.
That said, I understand your interpretation of Harriet’s message much better now, and agree that is probably is what Harriet was addressing. However, it also wouldn’t hurt to say the message was a poor one for conveying those thoughts, as those with legitimate concerns though she was making light of them.
It’s notable that Rebecca Watson says she is avoiding coming back to this comment thread because of “bullies”.
@nybrgus – there’s a godfather reference here…Thanks for clarifying and it’s always good to set aside something that has become non-productive and focus our energy on something more satisfying.
Because I have this scrupulosity thing, though, It wouldn’t fair if I admonished ildi* for using an animal reference and let you get away with a nursery rhyme creature**
As far as I can see the folks commenting here may be incredibly frustrating but still pretty much like me, just coming at things from very different perspectives.
It’s just really fucking hard sometimes, whether the disagreement is over attitudes in the skeptical community or medical care.
*I have to say, this nym is really typographically difficult on far sighted folks.
**Unless trolling is actually based on fishing, in which case I have no idea what civility rules apply.
@ildi:
fair enough. Links will be non-HTML tagged to prevent hold up in moderation.
University of Michigan Press:
Rednecks, Eggheads, and Blackfellas
_http ://www.press.umich.edu/9163/rednecks_eggheads_and_blackfellas
University of Alabam Huntsville:
Rocket City Rednecks
_http ://www.uah.edu/news/people/511-alumni-rednecks
Oxford University Press:
Hard Hats, Rednecks, and Macho Men
_http ://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/SocialStratification/?view=usa&ci=9780195336771
Queering Education Institute (formally affilliated with Syracuse University):
Goodgirls, Sluts and Dykes: Heteronormative Policing in Adolescent Girlhood
_http ://www.queeringeducation.org/courses/goodgirls-sluts-and-dykes-heteronormative-policing-in-adolescent-girlhood
University of Pittsburgh, Women’s Studies Program:
Slut Walk
_http ://www.wstudies.pitt.edu/blogs/tsc6/slut-walk
Cambridge Publishing:
Actresses and Whores
_http ://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521541022
Ferris State University:
Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia
Ni**er and Caricatures
_http ://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/caricature/
Intertext: A Student Publication of the Syracuse Writing Program:
Ni**er: Language, History, and Modern Day Discourse
_http ://wrt-intertext.syr.edu/XI/Nigger.html
Harvard Education Review:
NI**ER
BY RANDALL KENNEDY
_http ://www.hepg.org/her/booknote/82
Indeed, not all of these are examples of entire departments devoted to the use of such words, but some are, and some are indeed initiatives by universities to “reclaim” words and actually countermand their usage as terms of control and power (the Slut Walk, for example).
None-the-less these are examples of academic/popular discourse using such verbiage to various degrees. There are respectable reasons to use these terms when in an appropriate and in proper context, from an academic standpoint. Yet it is still verbiage I would be reticent to use outside of very specific contexts with very specific groups of people.
The point you are continually missing is that there is a significant portion of the population (who cares if it is the majority?) that would be offended by such usage. That includes Dr. Hall and her generation. To completely discount that and use it as some sort of prima facie evidence that she is so out of touch with this one topic that the rest of her writing and work is completely meaningless remains utterly asinine.
Despite the fact that U of Pittsburgh’s Women’s Studies Program has a Slut Walk (for essentially the same reason as the usage of “queer”) does not make me more comfortable using the word in conversation nor does it somehow discount the fact that many would be offended if I did. I’m already treading on thin ice even referencing the things I am here as is.
Etatro absolutely nailed it:
The extent to which he, or I, or you, or Dr. Hall may be correct (is it a majority? is it a minority? how big a majority? is it a specific demographic?) matters not at all. That may actually have been a fruitful topic for discourse, which Dr. Hall even tried to engage in. Instead it was used as the only evidence needed to completely disregard everything else she has to say on this and even tangentially related topics. That is utterly asinine.
etatro: I think you’ll find what the Association of Lesbian, Gay Bisexual & Transgender Issues in Counseling of Alabama (ALGBTICAL) has to say on the topic interesting. (Part of their mission statement is “To protect from harm LGBT individuals by language, stereotypes, myths, misinformation, threats of expulsion from social and institutional structures and other entities, and from beliefs contrary to their identity.”)
They also cite from Merriam-Webster:
oh I’ll add that while I did perhaps neglect the second part of your statement, your inclusion of the first part still beggars why on earth you would think that is evidence to bolster your case (and throughout the thread has come up repeatedly from others as evidence as well, hence why I focused on that aspect).
nybgrus:
I’m not missing the point you are trying to make. I’m making the point that it is ironic that it is Dr. Hall who is discounting Will’s analysis of her writing because he used the word queer, when she is the one who is not in touch with the evolving nature of the word. It may be the majority of our generation, but it doesn’t seem to be the majority of the younger generation. Will is coming from that knowledge base, and Dr. Hall is the one doing the discounting based on a false premise.
[...] the history, now on to the present day! Dr Hall has decided to write a post defending herself against the privilege police, and the “fearless leader” of the Skepchicks, one Rebecca [...]
Fine then. This thread has become so rapidly lengthy I may be conflating commenters. If that is the case here I apologize. There were, however, undoubtedly those that did do exactly that.
However, that is one minor point you are making. One that would have been resolved some 150 comments ago if anyone had bothered to actually address Dr. Hall’s explicit question and concession on it. And one that, even if it were completely erased from her post would not significantly change the substance of it. In other words, a nit to pick for no purpose. One that continues to be beaten over and over again. I would argue that others – if not you- have used it as a straw man. But even if you aren’t (which in your most recent comment I would agree) you’ve taken a dead horse and nuked the damned thing. And used, IMHO, pretty poor argument to do so.
nybgrus:
Your comparison to redneck, which is a word that has been claimed by rednecks as positive years ago (maybe what we will see with queer in a decade or so) and using books and articles as examples, is pretty piss-poor, also.
I continue to encourage the non-dead horse in a forward motion as long as I am being called a troll for riding it.
I never called you a troll. I said your argumentation is poor. And if the argument is poor, then one needn’t a potent counterargument to counter it. I presented the same caliber of evidence to the conversation as you have, and your own indictment of it should indicate the quality of your own argumentation. I can even play the same game as you and note that you didn’t address the term “slut” in context either.
And that is really the point – the argument is poor, the content is lacking, the point is trivial, and the counterarguments and counter-counter arguments are poor and pointless. All for what? Dr. Hall is out of touch with the adoption of “queer” as an accepted term by many (how many???) as an acceptable term. Whoop-dee-friggin-doo. Lets have a devolving conversation about it thus neglecting the substance and utility of anything else.
Which of course I am now party to as well, despite my own desire to extricate msyelf from it. My mistake and I accept it.
So with that, adieu.
idli:
You may not be missing Harriet Hall’s point, but you are doing a very good job of burying it.
BTW, this comment of your suddenly strikes me as particularly ironic, given that you have been pushing the “it’s used in academia” argument for use of the word queer:
“You, of course, are free to stay in your part of the ivory tower way above the ghetto.”
Ivory tower normally refers to university, of course. I know what you mean, but . . . well, it’s ironic to simultaneously bash the ivory tower while using it to bolster your argument. Perhaps it’s an internecine academic war between the sciences and humanities; lord knows that sort of thing does go on. At this point, I think it’s pretty clear we all know what everybody else means, even if we’re not using exactly the same lingo in exactly the same way, and so hopefully we can now move on to the rest of the discussion.
To me, the important part of this isn’t the semantics or even the fascinating discussion of the infinite variety of the human condition but the original point in the title of this article: “I am not your enemy”. We should all strive not to be one another’s enemies. As Novella so eloquently explained, we should prefer the charitable interpretation whenever possible. I think also we should see clarification rather than correction when we see a term being used in an unclear or imprecise manner such that confusion is caused. When we seek clarification, the dialog can progress, and we are all better for it. When we seek correction, it becomes about who is right and who is wrong and we tend to forget whatever it was we were talking about. And I say “we” because not one of us is a saint in this regard.
It is also worth noting that it is rarely truly a case of “us versus them”, which implies there being two sides. In a situation like this, there are probably nearly as many “sides” as there are participants in the discussion, and drawing lines is not going to be productive. Better to acknowledge that we do not all stand on exactly the same point on all things, and see where our many different perspectives get us in the conversation.
“Skeptics eat their own” is an excellent observation, as is the observation that skeptics do this mostly because skeptics are human. We like to think we’d be above that, but just as intelligent people are actually more likely to fall for scams, skeptics may actually be worse about this because we self-identify as being above all that. Because we think we’re above all that, we may not be on the lookout for that in our own behavior. Oh, we’ll see it in others — we often take particular relish in that — but will we see it in our own? It’s a bit like religious moralizers turning out to have huge skeletons in their closets. It’s hard, sometimes, to see clearly when we look in the mirror.
I have never been to a skeptical conference, so I can’t speak to whether or not it’s intimidating to women. The skeptics I have talked with online have been predominantly male, but not unwelcoming. I am certain that mileage varies; skeptics are like anyone else, so that means we’re all individuals and will run the full gamut of human behavior. There are jerks everywhere. I applaud all the different things that are done to fight against jerks, in every shape and form, whether openly or quietly, here or there. And I think the world would be a better place if we could all follow what I believe to be the principle Christian* principle of being nice to other people.
*Ironically, this isn’t something Christians are particularly good at, or even better at than other people. But it’s what Christ’s message boiled down to. I loved how Douglas Adams boiled down the whole Christ story in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.” He indicated the approximate date the Earth was destroyed as “nearly 2,000 years after someone was nailed to a tree for saying how wonderful it would be if everyone was nice to each other for a change.” Christians have a tendency to clutter that message up to the point of obfuscation, unfortunately. It takes an atheist to get to the nub of it, apparently.
No, people like to eat each other, and for some reason eating other people seems to be inherently rewarding for humans. The closer the people are to each other, either through blood or idea, the worse it is. A civil war is the worst, bloodiest, and most grief-filled kind of war.
In part, this whole frenzy of recriminations is a necessary comuppance to the skeptical community. Claims of science and evidence as guiding principles, pointing to the flaws in religion and SCAMS, it gave the comfortable illusion of a common set of ideas universally applied. Yet look how quickly we sprint from those common ideas when it’s one of our own blind spots. Turns out it’s really, really, really hard to apply rational principles, rules of evidence, logic and rhetoric throughout our lives – particularly when relationships are involved. People chose the sides they were on, which defined their heroes and of necessity their villains – now those heroes can do no wrong, and the villains no right.
We should have been prepared. We should have remembered Feynman’s advice and applied it to more than just physics – “the first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool”. The logical fallacies we criticize with such vigor in other are genuinely inherent to the human condition, and we are all humans. It’s just easier to excuse yourself when it’s you.
Dondover, I’ll leave it at this: A lot of women have encountered behavior which made them feel very unwelcome, uncomfortable, and even unsafe at skeptical events. Full stop. Many more have pointed out that this behavior is made much worse due to a lack of structured support systems that allow them to report such behavior and have it eliminated quickly, effectively, and with no negative repercussions.
Consider: if I told one of my direct reports that she “should wear short skirts like that more often, your good looks brighten up the whole office”, you can damn well bet I’m going to be sitting with 3 members of HR, my boss, and his boss in a very uncomfortable meeting by the end of the day. Why? Because the message is drilled into ALL of our heads: “Is someone making you uncomfortable? Call HR NOW”… and it works amazingly well. However, if I’m a prominent speaker at TAM, let’s say Penn, and tell a woman asking for an autograph, “I love when young ladies wear short skirts like that, it brightens up the whole conference”, what repercussions would I face? What recourse would that woman have?
Anyway, I’m not a woman, so I can’t say for sure, but all evidence and logic holds that women feel FAR safer from sexual harassment / objectification in an environment with a rigid “Is someone making you uncomfortable? Contact X immediately” policy in place (along with well published guidelines-for-the-clueless, “here are some behaviors that make others uncomfortable; they are not acceptable here; don’t do them”). By having those things in place, I think it is accurate to say my workplace has achieved a “safe place” status, where women feel no more likely to be harassed or sexualized than, well, men do (which is to say, pretty much not at all).
Bringing this all the way back around to the T-shirt incident: in an environment where women were drawing attention to undesired attentions they received at skeptical events, and the need for policies such as the above, Harriet’s T-Shirt amounted to a loud-and-clear proclamation, “There’s no harassment here! No policies needed! After all, I’m a woman, and I feel SAFE!” (emphasis and exclamations added to reflect her need to wear it for 3 straight days).
Which is not a problem in and of itself. (Read that sentence again. It means, nobody cares that Dr. Hall sees things the way she does, nobody is bothered that Dr. Hall has her opinions on this matter. It just means she’s lost a lot of respect from women who’d previously seen her as a person helping to advance feminist cause.)
So, what’s the problem? Who’s keeping the t-shirt subject in the forefront of discourse? Who’s writing open letters arguing that she ought not be written off as an ally to the feminist cause? Well… The only person still making noise about the T-Shirt, the only one who brought it back into public discourse, is Dr. Hall herself. She’s the one expressing indignation that so many women, many who’d been working so hard to bring visibility to the problem of how uncomfortable women have been being made to feel at skeptical events, took umbrage at her proclamation.
The problem, as I see it, is that Dr. Hall wants it both ways: she wants to both be able to directly discredit and undermine the efforts of woman skeptics trying to make skeptic events more woman-friendly; and yet be treated as an ally to that very movement.
S. Madison,
I respect that 100%, I certainly hope nothing I’ve said had any air of agism (if did, I’d appreciate having it brought to my attention). I also hope I don’t come across as suggesting that Dr. Hall had no firsthand experience of attending conferences (and being at the receiving end of countless sexist comments/advances/objectification/harassment encounters). Anyway, given her silence on the matter, and your closer proximity to her vantage point than my own, perhaps you can help clear the confusion. In an environment where numerous women were complaining about receiving exactly that kind of treatment at recent conferences, and working to put policies in place to reduce/eliminate it, what possible intention could Dr. Hall have for wearing a t-shirt proclaiming “I feel safe at TAM”?
@WLU
“No, people like to eat each other, and for some reason eating other people seems to be inherently rewarding for humans.”
(Hannibal Lecter voice): It’s because they’re so tasty; reminds me a little of pork.
ildi:
You are new here, do I’ll let you in part of the SBM culture: people who make claims, like you are, are asked to provided verifiable scientific evidence for those claims. That evidence must meet some kind of standard, and one type of citation that does not make that standard are web pages, especially to those of organizations that have an agenda and/or bias. This is why we do not accept articles in Age of Autism as proof that vaccines are causing harm. And yes, some people think they are an “academic-type” reference.
There are real academics who study the use of language, and how meanings change. They even publish in academic journals. You are not being asked how the word is used on some internet pages among a select group who are hip to the new and the now. You are being asked to provide actual verifiable scientific survey data that your particular word choice is as commonly accepted among a specific demographic, and that means all of those who were identified in the 1970s era DSM as have a psychological issue because of their sexual orientation. That includes the people etatro is trying to tell you about.
If you want us to conform to your use of language, you must provide the evidence. Just post the journal, title and date of the papers that discuss the use of the word “queer” and how it is now not offensive to anyone, anywhere. You might find it on Google Scholar, or you can call up any of the universities that offer “queer studies” and have them point to the linguistics papers on the usage of the word.
Until then, accept that you do not speak for everyone in your demographic on vocabulary.
Is there any possibility we could move on from whether or not “queer” is an acceptable term? I’m not taking sides here, because taking sides is what got us into this mess. But at some point, someone’s going to have to take the high road and drop the discussion in order for this thread to continue usefully. Not everything needs a citation (citations strengthen arguments, but they are not mandatory), not everyone is going to use words in precisely the same way no matter how hard everyone tries, and taking everybody literally based on our own usages of words is only going to result in confusion. What matters is the conversation, not who’s right and who’s wrong.
Chris:
Please do direct me then to Dr. Hall’s scientific evidence for the claim that most people in the LGBT community find the term offensive.
Ah, yes, minors offered by reputable universities shows a definite liberal bias. Totes understand.
Straw man much? Is that part of SBM culture?
Apologizing in advance in case the html that I am attempting for the 1st time on this site goes pear-shaped (as a Mac-based lifeform, I find the “usual techniques” don’t always work for me):
[quote]We should have remembered Feynman’s advice and applied it to more than just physics – “the first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool”.[/quote]
Reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould: “Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny.”
I’m not sure if I have any say in the issue, but I will happily concede that neither Will’s article, HH’s article (or anyone else’s article) should or can be dismissed solely on the basis of whether the word “queer” is considered offensive by a few, some or many people.
Is there a broader point? Perhaps we could bicker about a goal for the discussion to help ourselves accomplish something.
Just for the sake of variety.
pharmavixen – user tip.
That’s UBBCode, not HTML. Replace the square brackets with angle brackets, and replace “quote” with “blockquote” and it will work next time. I have had mixed results if the quoted text exceeds one paragraph; most blog software attempts to close unclosed HTML after a carriage return to avoid problems where someone accidentally italicizes or boldfaces everything that follows. I don’t remember whether WordPress does, but I know Scienceblogs does.
mousethatroared:
Agreed.
It appears to me that Dr. Hall is a second-wave feminist who does not conform to third-wave feminist expectations.
Viewed through this filter, everybody’s POV makes sense. I don’t see the prospect of much resolution, here.
pharmavixen, an example of what Calli Arcale explains:
<blockquote>Put paragraph of person you are quoting in here.</blockquote>
ildi, you are making a claim, and in order to correct Dr. Hall, you must provide the evidence. Etatro has already explained to you many reasons why it is not universally accepted.
Here, here. Myself included.
And once again.
Thank you Calli Arcale and WLU.
And mouse echoing the sentiment, I do as well.
Many women, including myself, have felt unsafe at many public places and events in general. I have been to many skeptic events, though just small ones in my city. Is it necessarily worse at TAM?
Ildi – It really doesn’t matter what ALGBTICAL, or PFLAG, or any Queer Theory/Studies department says about queer. What matters is how it is interpreted in the wild. You are again demonstrating my point that “queer” as a term is accepted by limited group, to/from a limited audience. The vast majority of the LGBT population are not PFLAG members, or know of ALGBTICAL’s stance on “queer.” In fact, I would argue that their opinions on the matter are the least consequential. What matters are the scared kids in small towns across the country / world; the biggotted dad, the conservative mom, the football team, the bully, the preacher, etc. everywhere else but these protected sanctuaries. Most people exist outside of them. For whatever reason, you are refusing to acknowledge that Rebecca Watson was wrong in her criticism of Harriet. She, Will, and Audpicc are absolutely wrong to beat on her for this point in an attempt to de-legitimize Harriet’s main points (and for some reason, you are defending or apologizing for them).
I alluded to it before, but I think I will articulate it now because it’s related (then I will go quietly into the night). I have a critique on the Queer Theory/Studies use of the word queer this way in academic departments on college campuses. First off – let me say that I believe in academic freedom, they are free to use name their courses/departments in whatever manner they think best without retribution or consequence. However, I am free to criticize the wisdom or utility of the tactic.
By naming their courses “queer” -studies -theory -literature -history or naming their department “Queer -Something.” They are instantly bringing along lots of baggage around the word, including the negative connotations of things …. not belonging or -being out of place or not matching. That is fine, there IS a strong place for taking students out of their comfort zones, making them think, engage their pre-conceptions; learn about LGBT issues; challenge notions of sexual/gender identity. BUT — by naming their courses/departments with the scary name of negative connotations, they are limiting their audience. Who do they need to reach? Do you think that the kid who comes from Smalltown, USA will go home and talk to his family & friends about the causes and consequences of Stonewall riots that he learned in his Queer Theory 101 class? Would he from his Social Justice 101 class? Would he be inclined to enroll in the Queer Theory 101 class or the Social Justice 101 class in the first place? What about talking to his mom about “Yellow Wallpaper” from his Queer Lit. class or his American Lit. class? These departments (in my opinion) need to think about their goals and who they might be excluding or alienating. In doing so, do you achieve your aims? I think all you end up doing is preaching to the choir. You’re not going to reach the students who would benefit the most into those seats. It makes it hostile to them because “queer” is a dirty word, it’s what bullies called the effeminent boy or the tomboy girl while growing up; it’s how Dad referred to things that disgusted him. This is the self-ghettoization I was talking about. It’s a damn shame too. Because the very hearts and minds that might be won over by engaging in these idea are shut out by the hostile nature of the likes of Rebecca, Will, and Skepchick.
@baldape: I haven’t been to conferences since I retired eight years ago…but I find your observations about putting attendees “on warning” by implementing your suggestions…quite unusual.
“Anyway, I’m not a woman, so I can’t say for sure, but all evidence and logic holds that women feel FAR safer from sexual harassment / objectification in an environment with a rigid “Is someone making you uncomfortable? Contact X immediately” policy in place (along with well published guidelines-for-the-clueless, “here are some behaviors that make others uncomfortable; they are not acceptable here; don’t do them”). By having those things in place, I think it is accurate to say my workplace has achieved a “safe place” status, where women feel no more likely to be harassed or sexualized than, well, men do (which is to say, pretty much not at all).”
Let me be clear, that I believe anti-harassment (sexual or otherwise) policies, in the workplace are pretty much standardized to comply with Federal and State laws.
Now I am depending on other people who attend conferences, to tell me if such policies and “published guidelines” are commonly seen at other skeptic meetings or business/professional conferences.
ildi, let me explain a little further, and ask one final question:
Many of us come to SBM on a regular basis because there is often a medically related condition in our family that we want to learn about. Many of us have disabled children, and many words that used to describe those children were actual medical terms: moron, spastic, retarded, idiot, etc. And others that may not have been medical terms but were often used: cripple, dumb, gimp, etc. Plus, there are certain alternative medicine purveyors that use terms without knowing their meaning, like quantum and nano.
We try to both understand the vocabulary we use, and to not offend others.
Now, please tell us why you are trying to make us conform to your way of thinking?
pharmavixen:
No. And when I think about the TAM I attended, there were a couple of other large groups. One included an appearance by Chuck Norris. So the danger would be the same as any other large hotel. Most of the official TAM events take place in one very large room, and few smaller rooms that flank a very large corridor. It is separated from the main casino and restaurant area by escalators. They are fairly public places. Going to your hotel rooms means using an elevator, which at that hotel could include the folks who are part of the BMX event, and perhaps those who are there for a rodeo ( see http://www.southpointeventscenter.com/ ).
I just saw the line up for the next TAM includes Dan Ariely. I loved his book Predictably Irrational, and the speech he gave when he won the 2008 Ig Nobel Prize for medicine “for demonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine.” Now, if hubby does not go on strike I might try going again this year.
lilady – Now I am depending on other people who attend conferences, to tell me if such policies and “published guidelines” are commonly seen at other skeptic meetings or business/professional conferences.
Workplace guidelines have a lot of tooth, because the employer has the ability to effect someone’s pay check or fire someone. What would be the negative consequence of non-compliance at a conference, which is basically open to the paying public, I assume?
Chris: Regarding your final question; I’m still waiting for you to point me to Dr. Hall’s scientific evidence that most people in the LGBT community find the term “queer” offensive. Maybe she has the data available by age or generational cohort? Geographic region? Political leaning? Educational level?
In response to popular demand, I’ve written a new post about the T-shirt. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-final-word-on-t-shirts-and-teapot-tempests/
@mouse – I wish I’d seen your posting earlier but I’m on a radically different timeline to you and have just crawled blearily out of bed and slurped down my morning cuppa. Sorry if you thought I was aiming at you! I wasn’t, but in my irritation (and sorrow too … I was – shocked? – to see up close how disunited the skeptical community really is) I sprayed shotgun pellets too wide and you got hit by the “friendly fire”. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa …
Don’t stop being humorous and funny, please, Mouse! You brighten up the forum and still talk good plain sense. Great to see they aren’t opposites.
@nybgrus explains it much better in his posting shortly after mine. Thanks, nyb – even if it wasn’t meant to be a favour, still you done me a favour. You sure have a way with words, slippery little buggers that they are.
I assume it’s OK to use the word “buggers”? Anyone want to take offense?
kathy, much too kind. I felt like I understood what you meant – probably because I felt the same way. Of course, most of my day is spent in front of a computer these days and procrastination is just far too easy….
mousethatroared, thank you about sharing your child’s story. Now I know we share similar experiences with speech delays, and even though my son’s hearing was not permanently affected: he did have many ear infections and tubes.
And I am jealous about any artistic abilities. Good on you for making a living at it.
@mouse:
Chris’ commented reminded me.
Here is a photo of the costumes. I am the one on the right in the anglerfish costume. My friend is the jellyfish. Both were completely handmade by me from scratch, and both had multiple lights including fiber optics (well just the anglerfish had fiberoptic) for night time.
@nybgrus: well done on the costumes! Perhaps you could turn your talents to t-shirt designs?
Interesting thread.
A couple of posters even smuggled christian charity into the mix (I’m not mentioning any names, kathy and calli, but you know who you are).
The mind boggles.
@quill: Thanks! It was pretty fun and we got a lot of very positive comments throughout the day
@BJ: I actually have little issue with that. Kathy clearly seems cognizant of her intentional blind spot there and while I can’t be certain, I’d be willing to bet that she is against legislation based purely on any religion including her own. She said that this may not make her a “True Skeptic(™)” but I sort of disagree. She is merely a skeptic who hasn’t (for whatever reason) turned the critical inquiry towards that specific facet. She is still wrong on the matter, but I am certainly not right on everything. And it is how the person acts on it that counts in the end. Would I encourage her to turn that skeptical eye towards religious claims? Sure. Would I consider her a bad person or a bad skeptic for not doing so? Not at all. Now if she wanted to use her religion to claim we should prevent gay marriage or some such silliness then yes, I would absolutely call her out on that. (sorry to “call you out” kathy – I hope you took it in the genuinely positive manner with which it was intended)
My own step father is extremely religious (well he was… I think he is getting to be less and less so). My mother told me that when he found out I was an atheist he actually went to bed that night and was utterly confused, commenting that I was such a good person, so caring, etc how could I be an atheist? And then he felt afraid for my eternal soul and actually started crying and praying for me. Yet if my mother hadn’t told me this I never in a million years would have guessed. In fact, I never in a million years would have guessed he was religious at all! He has always been pro-equality of everyone and everything, even back in 1970′s Tennessee when he was in medical school. So I can’t begrudge these folks that much and I can certainly understand the sociocultural reasons why someone otherwise skeptical would retain religious thought.
And you know that I am no accomodationist. But I am also not one to fall for a Nirvana fallacy and think everyone must be 100% skeptical 100% of the time on 100% of things, especially something that is so deeply socioculturally ingrained. As this thread has shown us, we are all still human after all.
I was just dismayed that anyone would think that the bible has anything to teach us about charity. Some individual Christians yes, but their bible no. When individual Christians act well, you can bet they’ve put a secular slant on their interpretation on their bible.
Of course that’s the case. But if someone wants to justify it to themselves with a sky fairy or something else, well, it’s almost there at least. It is tough to pick out, but there are parts of the bible worth listening to. It’s just on accident and we use our secular humanity to figure out which parts those are is all.
“As this thread has shown us, we are all still human after all.”
Amen.
@Kathy – no worries and my apologies, I was in a mood yesterday and being sensitive. Thanks, I enjoy your comments as well.
@Chris – yes, we should compare speech therapy experiences sometime. Because my son’s hearing loss is unilateral (no hearing one ear, typical hearing -with tubes- in the other) he does very well. Things have worked out for him because he qualified for our area oral hearing impaired program, which had incredible speech therapy integrated into an intensive pre-K and kindergarten program.
@nybrgus – LOVE the sea creatures! You did a wonderful job. The facial expression on that anglefish is brilliant. Thanks for posting. Also, I was very proud to see my alma mater on your redneck curriculum.
@BillyJoe – I’ve always been rather fond of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
thanks mouse! I feel like I am ze arteest! lol
It was fun though, for sure.
Oh and FYI, I have decided that I really need to focus on some things in the next few weeks and that SBM and NeuroLogica commentary is proving to temping a procrastination outlet, so I will ensure my inability to comment by giving my password to a friend to change it so I can’t log in. Drastic measures are sometimes necessary. So tomorrow morning will be my last contribution(s) to the blogs for a few weeks. I still am, after all, human it would seem.
Michelle,
“@BillyJoe – I’ve always been rather fond of “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.””
Firstly, I don’t accept the concept of sin.
Secondly, even if I did, those without sin should not cast a stone, because who knows the other’s situation.
Thirdly, it is too negative.
Fourthly, it’s from the bible which is full of contradiction, malice, and retribution.
The antidote:
Treat others how you like them to treat you.
Okay that may not work for a masochist. Someone suggested the more onerous….treat others how they would like you to treat them. Hmmm…that would not work if the other person is a masochist but you’re not a sadist. How about….treat others as they would like you to treat them provided it is not contrary to how you would treat others. Nope, I can see a problem there also…
Damn language.
Still, it’s better than my brother-in-law’s version….Do unto others and split!
BilllyJoe, I agree. Because I have seen actions by some who refuse to acknowledge they may have erred (or have reading comprehension issues). So they will not throw that first stone.
It is regrettable that Dr. Hall wore the t-shirt, even though I sympathize with the message (seriously, TAM is in a big hotel that has both and sometimes participants in rodeo, roller derbies, BMX races… none of those participants would be covered by any JREF policies). At best it was divisive, at worst it threw gasoline on a smouldering situation. While the reaction to the shirt has not been as vile as those lobbed at Ms. Watson for politely explaining that being invited to a room in the wee hours of the morning in an enclosed space makes her uncomfortable, it is still not warranted.
We do not need to forever condemn a person for one (or a few things) they have done, and forget what they have done on the whole. For example: I have the most wonderful mother-in-law in the world. I love her to pieces, and she has been there for every medical crisis with our oldest child… but I am still quite angry over her trying to take over our wedding (she turned a simple small wedding with appetizers into a large wedding with full dinner: I actually canceled everything, and that included losing the dress deposit money, and then had mostly what I wanted in a wedding in her living room). That was over thirty years ago.
BillyJoe Hehe – Okay, probably not a rule that’s going to work for you then. My mom used to tell a funny story about people who thought they were without sin, which kinda demonstrates her more metaphorical approach to “sin” and why it’s often more productive to focus on our flaws than others. But, it would take too long to tell and requires comical voices, so I’ll just say you seem to do fine without that saying.
Like nybrgus said -sociocultural stuff.
^That was a smiley face to indicate goodwill and friendliness – not joking or irony.
lol, indeed. This may sound funny coming from me, but I think you are taking mouse’s comment to seriously and literally. Though of course in a pedantic sense I certainly agree with you.
And yes, we all make mistakes. And we should all be willing to just… let… them…. go….
Well, I guess if Jesus can die for a metaphorical sin, the least I can do is accept sin as a metaphor. (:
@nybrgus – good luck with your new anti-procrastination endeavor. I can sympathize. I have an event coming in June and gotta buckle down and produce some work.
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.
That IS good news. Three cheers for Steven, Amy and Harriet! (Wish I hadn’t lost my NeuroLogica password, but posting here will have to be good enough)
[...] Novella recently commented on this in the context of recent, similar attacks on Harriet Hall regarding gender and sexism: “I think we all should remember the principle of [...]