Month: September 2012

If you aren't attracted to us, then stop being attracted to us

Zinnia Jones, , 172 Comments

Leftytgirl is absolutely on point with her critique of the no-win situation trans women are placed in by the demand for “disclosure” on their part:

So we see that what’s happening in these situations: there is an unresolved tension between the imagination of a cissexist society that heterosexual, cis men are only attracted to cis women, and the real-world fact that heterosexual, cis male sexual attraction to trans women is far from an uncommon phenomenon. Given that this larger cissexist imagination often emerges from voices with greater power in society, that tension tends to be resolved by assuming that such attraction never happens, and that even if it does, it is the just the result of some “deceptive tr*nny,” who probably deserves whatever violent “retribution” she receives— even in the case that this violence was never retributive in the first place.

Now, this isn’t to say that there are not instances in which a cis man does discover a woman’s trans status “in the moment,” then reacts in a violent manner. But this is to say, first of all, that the “disclosure” myth hands this man respect and power that he does not deserve, in the form of a ready-made, socially palatable alibi for violence against a woman with whom he willingly decided to engage in sexual relations. And secondly, given that this hypothetical cis man is indeed attracted to a trans woman, we cannot allow ourselves to buy into the cissexist imagination that she has somehow “disrespected” him merely by accepting or encouraging his very real sexual desires.

The fact is that regardless of what this man likes to imagine about himself, or what any of us might be inclined to tell ourselves, he is indeed attracted to a trans woman. That is an undeniable fact, and there’s no manner of obsessing, or fidgeting over it, and certainly no amount of blood splattered across the wall that is going to change that. So from the point that the man realizes that he is in fact attracted to a trans woman, he has two choices: get up and leave the room if he so desires, or else get the fuck over it.

By legitimizing the idea that violence is an acceptable response to finding out that someone is trans – whether before, during or after any physical contact, even while you’re sexually assaulting them, and even if you already knew well ahead of time that they were trans – and then accusing trans people of “deception” if they don’t offer this information, society has taken all of the responsibility for cis people’s brutal, prejudiced, plainly unacceptable reactions to trans people, and shifted it to trans people themselves.

We’re to blame for their attraction to us. We’re to blame for our existence ensuring that they can no longer rightfully believe that all the women they’re attracted to aren’t trans. We’re to blame for their discomfort at the disconnect between what they believe their desires to be, and what those desires actually are. We’re to blame for the violence they inflict on us when they come face-to-face with their own internal dissonance. And even if they’re only faced with this realization after the fact, we’re still to blame for the supposed “trauma” they might somehow suffer from the oh-so-terrible discovery that one of their past partners was trans.

We’re to blame for the actions of people who can become so “panicked” at someone’s mere existence that their first reaction is to harass, beat or kill that person. And we’re to blame for hurting their fragile feelings when we upend an assumption they shouldn’t have held in the first place – an assumption which their own actions directly contradict.

Think about whose problem this really is. Don’t make it ours.

If you aren't attracted to us, then stop being attracted to us
{advertisement}

If you aren’t attracted to us, then stop being attracted to us

Zinnia Jones, , 172 Comments

Leftytgirl is absolutely on point with her critique of the no-win situation trans women are placed in by the demand for “disclosure” on their part:

So we see that what’s happening in these situations: there is an unresolved tension between the imagination of a cissexist society that heterosexual, cis men are only attracted to cis women, and the real-world fact that heterosexual, cis male sexual attraction to trans women is far from an uncommon phenomenon. Given that this larger cissexist imagination often emerges from voices with greater power in society, that tension tends to be resolved by assuming that such attraction never happens, and that even if it does, it is the just the result of some “deceptive tr*nny,” who probably deserves whatever violent “retribution” she receives— even in the case that this violence was never retributive in the first place.

Now, this isn’t to say that there are not instances in which a cis man does discover a woman’s trans status “in the moment,” then reacts in a violent manner. But this is to say, first of all, that the “disclosure” myth hands this man respect and power that he does not deserve, in the form of a ready-made, socially palatable alibi for violence against a woman with whom he willingly decided to engage in sexual relations. And secondly, given that this hypothetical cis man is indeed attracted to a trans woman, we cannot allow ourselves to buy into the cissexist imagination that she has somehow “disrespected” him merely by accepting or encouraging his very real sexual desires.

The fact is that regardless of what this man likes to imagine about himself, or what any of us might be inclined to tell ourselves, he is indeed attracted to a trans woman. That is an undeniable fact, and there’s no manner of obsessing, or fidgeting over it, and certainly no amount of blood splattered across the wall that is going to change that. So from the point that the man realizes that he is in fact attracted to a trans woman, he has two choices: get up and leave the room if he so desires, or else get the fuck over it.

By legitimizing the idea that violence is an acceptable response to finding out that someone is trans – whether before, during or after any physical contact, even while you’re sexually assaulting them, and even if you already knew well ahead of time that they were trans – and then accusing trans people of “deception” if they don’t offer this information, society has taken all of the responsibility for cis people’s brutal, prejudiced, plainly unacceptable reactions to trans people, and shifted it to trans people themselves.

We’re to blame for their attraction to us. We’re to blame for our existence ensuring that they can no longer rightfully believe that all the women they’re attracted to aren’t trans. We’re to blame for their discomfort at the disconnect between what they believe their desires to be, and what those desires actually are. We’re to blame for the violence they inflict on us when they come face-to-face with their own internal dissonance. And even if they’re only faced with this realization after the fact, we’re still to blame for the supposed “trauma” they might somehow suffer from the oh-so-terrible discovery that one of their past partners was trans.

We’re to blame for the actions of people who can become so “panicked” at someone’s mere existence that their first reaction is to harass, beat or kill that person. And we’re to blame for hurting their fragile feelings when we upend an assumption they shouldn’t have held in the first place – an assumption which their own actions directly contradict.

Think about whose problem this really is. Don’t make it ours.

If you aren’t attracted to us, then stop being attracted to us

Rapists don't look like rapists, continued

Zinnia Jones73 Comments

As I previously mentioned, rapists have a strong interest in not looking like rapists. Being seen as a menacing creep, an awkward and disturbed loner, or even marginally likely to cause harm to anyone, is directly contrary to their goals. For someone looking to commit rape, anything that might alert others to this intention and capability is simply not in their interest.

Many people don’t seem to understand this, and believe that women somehow ought to be capable of, and responsible for, avoiding potential rapists. The fact that rapists often look like everyone else – meaning that anyone around us could possibly be a rapist – makes this an impossible expectation. Perhaps people believe that if someone has the potential for such monstrosity, the horror of it would be readily evident at all times, beyond anyone’s ability to disguise, and visible for the rest of us to perceive and avoid. But this isn’t the case at all. In fact, the exact opposite is often true.

In a piece on Jerry Sandusky and the strategies of child molesters, the New Yorker explains that they groom not only potential victims, but also entire communities. By cultivating a wholesome image of fun, friendliness and approachability, they obtain easier access to children, while avoiding everyone else’s suspicion:

“Many molesters confirmed that they would spend anywhere from two to three years getting established in a new community before molesting any children,” van Dam writes. One pedophile she interviewed would hang out in bars, looking for adults who seemed to be having difficulties at home. He would lend a comforting ear, and then start to help out. As he told van Dam:

I was just a friend doing things a friend would do. Helping them move, going to baseball games with them. What I found myself doing was getting close to the kids, becoming more of a father figure or a mentor, doing things for them that the parents weren’t doing because the parents were out getting drunk all the time. And, of course, it made it easy for me to baby-sit. They’d say, “Oh yeah. We can off-load the kids with Jimmy.”

No one would expect that these lovable, happy guys who are great with children would actually abuse them, and when their crimes do come to light, those around them find it simply unbelievable. They can’t accept that someone like that would do such a thing:

“We weren’t really prepared to call the police and make it into a police investigation,” one of the mothers told van Dam. “It was an indiscretion, as far as we were concerned at this point. It was all vague: ‘Well, he put his hands down there.’ And, ‘Well, it was inside the pants, but fingers went to here.’ We were all still trying to protect Mr. Clay’s reputation, and the possibility this was all blown up out of proportion and there was a mistake.”

The families then learned that there had been a previous complaint by a child against Clay, and they took their case to the school superintendent. He, too, advised caution. “If allegations do not clearly indicate sexual abuse, a gray area exists,” he wrote to them. “The very act of overt investigation carries with it a charge, a conviction, and a sentence, a situation which is repugnant to fair-minded people.”

Indeed, they often find it so difficult to accept, they’ll actively defend and protect the abuser:

The pedophile is often imagined as the dishevelled old man baldly offering candy to preschoolers. But the truth is that most of the time we have no clue what we are dealing with. A fellow-teacher at Mr. Clay’s school, whose son was one of those who complained of being fondled, went directly to Clay after she heard the allegations. “I didn’t do anything to those little boys,” Clay responded. “I’m innocent. . . . Would you and your husband stand beside me if it goes to court?” Of course, they said. People didn’t believe that Clay was a pedophile because people liked Clay—without realizing that Clay was in the business of being likable.

Because the abuser is considered to be so above reproach, those who are suspicious of him are instead found to be at fault:

“I was running into my colleagues who were saying, ‘Did you know that some rotten parents trumped up these charges against this poor man?’ ” one teacher told van Dam. The teacher added, “Not just one person. Many teachers said this.” A psychologist working at the school thought that the community was in the grip of hysteria. The allegations against Clay, he thought, were simply the result of the fact that he was “young and energetic.” Clay threatened to sue. The parents dropped their case.

Clay was a man repeatedly accused of putting his hands down the pants of young boys. Parents complained. Superiors investigated. And what happened? The school psychologist called him a victim of hysteria.

While it’s always disgusting to see people side with accused rapists and doubt their victims, it shouldn’t be surprising. Abusers thrive on grey areas, their carefully constructed reputations, the perceived impossibility of their actions, and the willingness of others to defend them and interpret their behavior in the most charitable way possible.

Rapists don't look like rapists, continued

Rapists don’t look like rapists, continued

Zinnia Jones73 Comments

As I previously mentioned, rapists have a strong interest in not looking like rapists. Being seen as a menacing creep, an awkward and disturbed loner, or even marginally likely to cause harm to anyone, is directly contrary to their goals. For someone looking to commit rape, anything that might alert others to this intention and capability is simply not in their interest.

Many people don’t seem to understand this, and believe that women somehow ought to be capable of, and responsible for, avoiding potential rapists. The fact that rapists often look like everyone else – meaning that anyone around us could possibly be a rapist – makes this an impossible expectation. Perhaps people believe that if someone has the potential for such monstrosity, the horror of it would be readily evident at all times, beyond anyone’s ability to disguise, and visible for the rest of us to perceive and avoid. But this isn’t the case at all. In fact, the exact opposite is often true.

In a piece on Jerry Sandusky and the strategies of child molesters, the New Yorker explains that they groom not only potential victims, but also entire communities. By cultivating a wholesome image of fun, friendliness and approachability, they obtain easier access to children, while avoiding everyone else’s suspicion:

“Many molesters confirmed that they would spend anywhere from two to three years getting established in a new community before molesting any children,” van Dam writes. One pedophile she interviewed would hang out in bars, looking for adults who seemed to be having difficulties at home. He would lend a comforting ear, and then start to help out. As he told van Dam:

I was just a friend doing things a friend would do. Helping them move, going to baseball games with them. What I found myself doing was getting close to the kids, becoming more of a father figure or a mentor, doing things for them that the parents weren’t doing because the parents were out getting drunk all the time. And, of course, it made it easy for me to baby-sit. They’d say, “Oh yeah. We can off-load the kids with Jimmy.”

No one would expect that these lovable, happy guys who are great with children would actually abuse them, and when their crimes do come to light, those around them find it simply unbelievable. They can’t accept that someone like that would do such a thing:

“We weren’t really prepared to call the police and make it into a police investigation,” one of the mothers told van Dam. “It was an indiscretion, as far as we were concerned at this point. It was all vague: ‘Well, he put his hands down there.’ And, ‘Well, it was inside the pants, but fingers went to here.’ We were all still trying to protect Mr. Clay’s reputation, and the possibility this was all blown up out of proportion and there was a mistake.”

The families then learned that there had been a previous complaint by a child against Clay, and they took their case to the school superintendent. He, too, advised caution. “If allegations do not clearly indicate sexual abuse, a gray area exists,” he wrote to them. “The very act of overt investigation carries with it a charge, a conviction, and a sentence, a situation which is repugnant to fair-minded people.”

Indeed, they often find it so difficult to accept, they’ll actively defend and protect the abuser:

The pedophile is often imagined as the dishevelled old man baldly offering candy to preschoolers. But the truth is that most of the time we have no clue what we are dealing with. A fellow-teacher at Mr. Clay’s school, whose son was one of those who complained of being fondled, went directly to Clay after she heard the allegations. “I didn’t do anything to those little boys,” Clay responded. “I’m innocent. . . . Would you and your husband stand beside me if it goes to court?” Of course, they said. People didn’t believe that Clay was a pedophile because people liked Clay—without realizing that Clay was in the business of being likable.

Because the abuser is considered to be so above reproach, those who are suspicious of him are instead found to be at fault:

“I was running into my colleagues who were saying, ‘Did you know that some rotten parents trumped up these charges against this poor man?’ ” one teacher told van Dam. The teacher added, “Not just one person. Many teachers said this.” A psychologist working at the school thought that the community was in the grip of hysteria. The allegations against Clay, he thought, were simply the result of the fact that he was “young and energetic.” Clay threatened to sue. The parents dropped their case.

Clay was a man repeatedly accused of putting his hands down the pants of young boys. Parents complained. Superiors investigated. And what happened? The school psychologist called him a victim of hysteria.

While it’s always disgusting to see people side with accused rapists and doubt their victims, it shouldn’t be surprising. Abusers thrive on grey areas, their carefully constructed reputations, the perceived impossibility of their actions, and the willingness of others to defend them and interpret their behavior in the most charitable way possible.

Rapists don’t look like rapists, continued

NOM speaker explains his homosexuality/incest parallels: "Too much sameness"

Zinnia Jones, , , 32 Comments

Robert Gagnon, professor of theology and speaker for the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, recently explained one of his anti-gay arguments on Facebook:

When I compare homosexual practice to incest it is primarily to make the point that if we are opposed to the latter we should also be opposed to the former, since both involve a union of persons who are too much alike on a structural (formal, embodied) level: too much sameness as regards kinship (incest) or gender (homosexual practice), not enough complementary otherness.

Next up on the chopping block: marriages of white people, Christians, and partners who both prefer salty snacks over sweet. Not enough complementary otherness!

NOM speaker explains his homosexuality/incest parallels: "Too much sameness"

NOM speaker explains his homosexuality/incest parallels: “Too much sameness”

Zinnia Jones, , , 32 Comments

Robert Gagnon, professor of theology and speaker for the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute, recently explained one of his anti-gay arguments on Facebook:

When I compare homosexual practice to incest it is primarily to make the point that if we are opposed to the latter we should also be opposed to the former, since both involve a union of persons who are too much alike on a structural (formal, embodied) level: too much sameness as regards kinship (incest) or gender (homosexual practice), not enough complementary otherness.

Next up on the chopping block: marriages of white people, Christians, and partners who both prefer salty snacks over sweet. Not enough complementary otherness!

NOM speaker explains his homosexuality/incest parallels: “Too much sameness”

Are they really religious? Yes!

Zinnia Jones, , , 11 Comments

Following widespread attacks and protests at US embassies in the Middle East in reaction to a film insulting Islam, several people have linked to a story from February by Egyptian author Alaa Al Aswany. In the article, titled “Are They Really Religious?”, Aswany criticizes Egyptian Muslims who follow the letter of their interpretation of Islamic law, but disregard basic human decency.

He cites the examples of a male pharmacist who refused to give an injection of insulin to an elderly diabetic woman because of “sharia”, hospital employees leaving their patients unattended for hours so they could pray at a mosque during Ramadan, and Egyptian police officers insisting on letting their beards grow as Muhammad commanded after they had raped, tortured and killed protesters during the revolution. Aswany says:

True religion requires us to defend human values: truth, justice and freedom. This is the essence of religion and it is much more important than growing beards or giving the call to prayer in the Parliament chamber.

So, are these supposed hypocrites “really religious”? Yes, they are still religious. When people insist on spending hours in prayer, or protesting any insult against someone they consider a prophet of their faith, this is obviously driven by religious beliefs, and it is religious behavior. Considering this an act of hypocrisy, or something other than religious in nature, requires redefining religion to mean an idealized “true religion” that upholds a certain set of universal moral values. And while it may sound nice to say “religion is good, and when it’s not, people are just doing it wrong”, that simply isn’t true.

If Aswany wants to denounce medical neglect, human rights violations, and “Egyptians who observe the superficial aspects of religion and pray regularly, but in their daily dealings are far from truthful and honest”, then this is all certainly worthy of criticism in its own right. But just because something is bad doesn’t mean it’s not religious. In reality, religion is not synonymous with respect, honesty, fairness, tolerance, peace, freedom, the golden rule, or anything else that people might insist is a part of “true religion”. Certainly, most sects of most religions will profess to hold most of these values, but in practice, their interpretations often leave exceptions wide enough to fly a plane through.

To claim that religion can only be responsible for good, and that anything terrible which results from it must not have been motivated by religion at all, would severely compromise our understanding of religion as a phenomenon and its role in shaping human behavior. If we recognize that people can be inspired to acts of extraordinary heroism and self-sacrifice by their beliefs about the foundation of existence and the ultimate purpose of humanity, what sense does it make to deny that these same beliefs could also drive people to commit acts of great evil which they think are actually good?

Even simply adhering to ideals of truth, justice and freedom still isn’t enough to prevent some people from completely screwing things up when they put this into action. Why is it so implausible that someone’s religious ideas about what’s inherently good could in fact be utterly atrocious? A society that values shallow displays of piety over respect for human life has absolutely been influenced by religion. Bad religious behavior by religious people doesn’t happen in spite of religion. It happens because of it, and it doesn’t stop being religious when it starts being a problem.

Equating religion with ethical conduct, and the absence of religion with immorality, implies that non-religious people do not share the basic, humane values that are attributed to this “true religion” – or that if they do, they must indeed be religious. Neither is true. People of no religion are fully capable of acting ethically, and their ability to do so is not hindered by the absence of religious faith. It doesn’t mean that they must be either secretly immoral or secretly religious. The lack of religion is not synonymous with a lack of morality, because godlessness and good behavior were never incompatible. The denial that religion could ever be responsible for any wrongdoing is not only false – it also unfairly maligns every person who doesn’t need religion to know right from wrong.

Those who put their prayers before their patients, kill protesters while defending their beards, and attack embassies in the name of Muhammad have not failed to be religious. They’ve succeeded. And just because that success is in the fields of inhumanity, ignorance, frivolity and violence doesn’t mean a lack of faith had anything to do with it.

Are they really religious? Yes!

Live show at 10 PM tonight

Zinnia JonesLeave a comment

Heather and I will be hosting a live show on BlogTV tonight at 10 PM Eastern time. If you haven’t been to BlogTV before, it’s a live stream with a chatroom attached where people can talk with us. It’s usually a lot of fun. If you’d like to join us, just go to http://www.blogtv.com/people/zjemptv at 10 PM tonight. See you there!

Update: The show is now concluded. Thanks to everyone who came by!

Live show at 10 PM tonight

Which is more respectful of religious freedom?

Zinnia Jones, , , , , 10 Comments

A. Allowing military chaplains the option to perform, or refuse to perform, same-sex wedding ceremonies or any other wedding ceremonies on military bases.

B. Banning all military chaplains from performing any same-sex wedding ceremonies on bases, regardless of their beliefs or whether they may actually want to perform such ceremonies.

If you answered B, congratulations! You’re Senator Jim Inhofe:

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe hasn’t given up his resistance to the acceptance of gays and lesbians in the military or same-sex marriage.

On Tuesday, Inhofe and fellow Republican Roger Wicker of Mississippi introduced a measure that would ban same-sex marriages on military bases and protect military chaplains from “pressure” to perform such ceremonies.

The two senators described the Military Religious Freedom Act as an effort to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, on the Defense Department in the wake of the December 2010 repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which ended the official ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military. …

A Defense Department directive issued last year says: “A military chaplain may participate in or officiate any private ceremony, whether on or off a military installation.”

For all of their concern about non-existent “pressure” to perform same-sex weddings, the authors of this “religious freedom” measure certainly don’t seem to mind when homophobic lawmakers legally pressure LGBT-accepting chaplains to stop doing the ceremonies they themselves wish to perform. What about their religious freedom? Or do anti-gay politicians only subscribe to the “you are free to do as we tell you” theory of freedom?

Which is more respectful of religious freedom?

Linda Harvey: "Strong feelings are not proof of anything."

Zinnia Jones, , , 25 Comments

Linda Harvey, homophobe extraordinaire, has composed an amateurish flyer “for your older grade school or middle school children about homosexuality”. In the middle of the standard array of homophobic tropes, she makes the following contention:

Some people claim they were “born” homosexual. But there is no well-accepted science that backs up that idea. Strong feelings are not proof of anything.

“Strong feelings are not proof of anything.” I’m going to have to remember that one. Like Brian Brown’s incredible declaration that “Just because you believe something is wrong, it doesn’t mean that you make it illegal”, Harvey says this without a hint of irony or awareness of just how applicable it is. Against all odds, they’ve momentarily achieved a remarkable clarity, but utterly fail to recognize its relevance to their own positions. This one crucial realization essentially negates everything else in her ridiculous pamphlet. For instance:

But once in a while, a man wants to date and love another man, or a woman wants to date and love a woman.

Most cultures long ago decided this was very wrong. And they made rules against it, for a lot of good reasons (more grown-up stuff). First of all, two men can never create their own child. Neither can two women. And two men kissing– well, it just doesn’t seem right. That’s because it isn’t!

Sure, some people might feel that same-sex affection “just doesn’t seem right”. But strong feelings are not proof of anything.

When God made the world, in the beginning, He created just two types of humans: a man and a woman. He told them to join together and become husband and wife (Genesis 2:18-25).

After some time passed, sin came into the world, and people started doing things they shouldn’t. Some of those things involved having homosexual feelings. This sin is described in the Bible, and it’s always wrong. When a few people stubbornly did this anyway, they made life very hard for people in their community. God was not pleased (Genesis 19).

One man and one woman is the way our Creator God designed us from the start.

Linda Harvey might believe two individuals were directly formed by a deity at the beginning of time, and that some of their descendants had their cities orbitally bombarded by that same god for trying to gang-rape some angels… but strong feelings are not proof of anything. Especially not that.

Still, God has standards that don’t change, and that’s a good thing. God is always willing to forgive us if we ask Him.

Yes, she believes in some kind of metaphysics where a certain god will forgive you for things, and this forgiveness is somehow meaningful and important, but strong feelings certainly aren’t proof of that.

God had very, very strong words against homosexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27). So even though it’s not the only sin, it’s still a very serious one.

When Jesus came, He repeated what God said about marriage –that it should only be one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6). And we should not forget that Jesus was really God on earth, so He should know!

And yes, some people believe that a certain book actually contains an accurate record of the moral commands of a real deity, that these commands define an enduring and absolute structure of morality, and that one particular man was a human incarnation of that deity… but strong feelings that a religious book is axiomatic, or that someone is literally a god, are not proof of anything.

And, a lot of people who don’t even believe in God agree. From Asia to India to Africa to Latin America, most people now and throughout history agree that being homosexual or “gay” is wrong.

Large numbers of people have historically held a variety of positions like this, such as belief in the inherent inferiority of women, the inequality of certain races, the inhumanity of people with disabilities, and so on. But those strong feelings were not proof of anything.

So if you hear that everyone thinks being “gay” is okay, don’t believe it—even if that person is a grown-up, or even if he leads a church. There are many, many people who still follow God’s teachings, still believe their common sense, and believe that romance, dating and marriage are for a boy and girl, a man and woman.

Their “common sense” might tell them certain groups of people are fundamentally immoral because of some interpretations of some religions which some people hold to be fact – but strong feelings are not proof of anything.

BUT… it’s not right to tell someone that being homosexual is okay. The person may be feeling sad because of being bullied, but never try to make him or feel better by saying “gay” is okay.

Harvey may think that opposing bullying based on sexual orientation is somehow compatible with telling people they’re in direct violation of moral injunctions from the creator of the universe and in need of “forgiveness”, but such feelings are not proof that this is anything but hateful, unnecessary, counterproductive, fictional nonsense.

I think this is my new favorite thing.

Linda Harvey: "Strong feelings are not proof of anything."