ShardsOfBlue

I’ve been asked to explain why I believe transandrophobia is not structural in the way transmisogyny is.

“It’s important for us to recognize when marginalizations are structural and when they are not, because only in so doing can we deconstruct our participation in those structures. It takes active, deliberate work to avoid perpetuating structural marginalization.”

The above link attempts define what the term “transandrophobia” does and does not encompass and situate it squarely within the structure of transmisogyny. In it, I propose the following definition:

“Transandrophobia is a nonstructural uncritical negative reaction toward the masculinity and masculinization of trans men/mascs that comes as a result of living in a patriarchally oppressive society.”

It cannot be structural, because:

“Though we are men/mascs, we are still trans, and the cisheteropatriarchy cannot abide our existence. [But] though we are trans, we are still men/mascs, and the cisheteropatriarchy was built for men.”

I march for policy that supports and funds scientific research and education. Science isn’t free, but it is essential to a free and prosperous nation.

The trend in American politics – epitomized by the current administration, but not unique to it – has been to devalue scientific research and the experts who spend their lives conducting it.

Science itself is nothing more than a system for testing the way our world works. Instead of making assumptions, science puts those assumptions to the test.

Because of science, we have every benefit of modern life – from indoor plumbing to medicine to the internet – Government funding keeps research going, and research brings progress.

I march for policy that supports and funds scientific research and education. Science isn’t free, but it is essential to a free and prosperous nation.

The trend in American politics -- epitomized by the current administration, but not unique to it -- has been to devalue scientific research and the experts who spend their lives conducting it.

Science itself is nothing more than a system for testing the way our world works. Instead of making assumptions, science puts those assumptions to the test.

Because of science, we have every benefit of modern life -- from indoor plumbing to medicine to the internet -- Government funding keeps research going, and research brings progress.

Congress recently voted to (re)allow ISPs to sell our browsing data. This a huge breach of basic privacy rights; but beyond moral considerations, it's also going to affect how much we pay for things on a practical level.

If a company buys our data from Comcast, for example, they can see: - what online stores we shop at and how often (giving them an idea of our income) - where we bank (so they know what credit cards, banking packages, etc. to offer) - when we are home (based off of when we do things online from home) - what our medical concerns are (based on searches, prescriptions purchased, etc.) - what stage of life we may be in (visiting mommy blogs, researching elementary schools or colleges, etc.) - what our political beliefs are (where do we get our news, do we visit activist sites)

The trouble with all this, besides being fundamentally creepy, is that businesses with this much information can target us and price discriminate with immense precision. Meanwhile, monopolistic ISPs can profit not just from our subscriptions, but from selling information which we give them incidental to the service for which we're actually paying.

Unlike the tracking from social media sites and search engines, we cannot opt to log out of an ISP before browsing. We either use the internet, or we don't, and our options for masking our browsing habits from the company providing our internet service are few, annoying, and incomplete.

Below are some links with progressively detailed information.

***** BASICS OF THE POLICY & HOW TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY

For a relatively simple guide to protecting your privacy digitally on various devices, check out: https://www.letsgetsafe.org

For an overview of the policy decision: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/senate-votes-to-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-history-to-advertisers/

***** FURTHER DETAILS

For a "second opinion" alternative to #letsgetsafe, see: https://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/a-beginners-guide-to-beefing-up-your-privacy-and-security-online/

For an in-depth look at the overall situation, I recommend: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/03/how-isps-can-sell-your-web-history-and-how-to-stop-them/

Finally, if you really want to deep-dive, EFF has everything you could ever want to know about digital privacy: https://ssd.eff.org

#TodayILearned the difference between: (1) macarons and macaroons, and (2) globalism vs globalization.

“While globalism incorporates the idea of the “Global Commons” to describe the ozone layer, oceans, and genetic diversity, globalization is the exploitation of these resources by giant corporations beyond the reach of democratic processes. While globalism implies respect for diversity, globalization demands the standardization or homogenization of nearly everything and everybody.”

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25a/069.html

Note that this explanation assumes that “corporations outside the reach of democracy” and regulation will inherently exploit. I share this view, but it isn’t the only valid one. It also assumes that a globalized capitalist economy would be entirely outside regulation.

If I understand the underlying differences correctly, a less opinionated explanation might explain the difference as:

Globalism: A view emphasizing that the people of Earth all share a common set of resources and should act accordingly.

Globalization: The push for economic interdependency and normalization according to capitalist ideals.

We Have to Support People

This was posted to a group I follow. I edited out all identifying information to protect privacy because it’s from a private group, but it was so well-stated I wanted to share. Quote is below, emphasis mine.

“I attended [redacted]’s townhall meeting in [redacted] last night. People objected to [redacted] requesting financial support. This is neither an endorsement or rejection of [redacted] but a general observation:

1) Members of Congress are constantly in campaign mode because they face elections every two years. It’s just the way it is.

2) If we hate Citizens United and the role of big money in politics, then we have to be willing to infuse small donations into the process.

3) If we are serious about getting serious, we need to support people. That includes donations (when appropriate) and volunteering. If someone is 85% right on issues and the opponent is 85% wrong on issues, we shouldn’t let [a] 15% gap from our idea of perfection wipe out our support. We can say that the Democratic Party lost the election, but I think that many of us let that 15% gap paralyze us from making what should have been the obvious choice.

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always be gentle toward everyone." Titus 3:5 

This quote was posted by a friend of mine on social media the other day. The next day, it was followed up with, “Jesus understood authority. As His followers, we should too.” The friend did not mention Pres. Trump, but with the current political climate, I infer these comments to be related.

I took some time to consider these words, and ask myself whether this is a rebuke fitly spoken to me regarding my resistance to Pres. Trump. I am well aware of human fallibility, my own included, and make a genuine effort to bury my pride in service to truth when it is shown to me.

I concluded in this case, however, that the rebuke is ill-fitted to the times. Much of the instruction is timeless: always do good, do not slander, be peaceable, gentle, and considerate. However, Paul was speaking to a specific group about a specific issue of their times, and the principle of being “subject to rulers and authorities” should not be applied unilaterally without regard for context. God does not require blind obedience to authority from His followers, but rather that we exercise wisdom and judgement.

1. There are numerous times when a rejection of authority is the only acceptable Christian answer to a situation. Missionaries preach in countries where it is illegal. The Jews of the Old Testament did not submit to the superior military authority of the numerous secular nations which sought to dominate them. Soldiers are not exempt from the moral implications of carrying out unjust or immoral orders. Battered women should not stay with their abusers. Hitler needed to be overthrown, and people were right to hide the Jews from the authorities who came to arrest them. Every civil rights advance in this country was built on the efforts of people rejecting the current authorities, from the illegal underground railroads freeing slaves, to Martin Luther King, Jr. and his nonviolent but nonetheless illegal actions, to the women who fought for universal suffrage. Jesus Himself did not submit to the religious authorities of His day, “working” on the Sabbath and mingling with the outcast, impure, and unclean; He was ultimately sentenced and executed for His refusal to obey.

2. This country was founded by the rebellion of our founding fathers against the primary authority over them. They felt a need to rebuff that authority in order to create “a more perfect union” in which people would be able to live their lives freely and with a representative government, because their current government did not provide those freedoms.

3. We do not live in a dictatorship or a monarchy, where the president has unilateral authority over the people. The people are an integral part of our democratic republic. It is not only our right, but also our civic and moral duty to participate in government by making our voices heard when the government does things we find morally unconscionable. The president, in fact, works for the people, and does so at our sufferance. He is a civil servant, not a king. We do not owe our loyalty or even our obedience to any one man; the laws and principles of the nation itself are the true authorities in our system.

4. All three branches of our government are co-equal. The president is not above the courts, who are not above congress. This means that if the people owe any loyalty to the president, we owe it equally to the courts, who are currently challenging the legality of his policies. 

5. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God’s. I will give Caesar what is his: my body, should I choose to break a law; my taxes, for the betterment of the country as a whole; and my diligent and watchful participation in government. My moral compass I reserve for God alone, grounded in my relationship with Him, guided by His Word as understood in its historical context, and informed by careful study of the issues at hand.

The university had the right to invite him. The students had a right to protest in objection. The university had the right to rescind its invitation.

The protestors did not have a right to become violent. -But- that does not diminish the right or value of the many, many lawful protesters that had nothing to do with the destruction of property. The protestors who became violent can be prosecuted for their actions. Their existence only obscures the real issue: did the students have a right to nonviolently protest? Yes. Did the school have a right to uninvite him due to the pressure of those students? Also yes.

Free speech is not even at issue here. If this moron wants to stand on a rooftop and scream his idiocy from the rafters, that’s his right. Hate speech is protected, insofar as it does not invite “imminent” physical violence against another person or single out a specific person (as in the case of the transwoman noted above). Because he has a history of inciting that kind of personal, directed attack, it could be argued that he should not be allowed to speak publicly, but even if that argument failed to pass legal muster, the right of the students to protest and the school to cut him from their speaking agenda still stand.

If every school in the country refused to host him, that’s their right. His right to speak his views is protected, but no one is forced to grant him a platform.

Our current system places the burden of education funding and planning heavily on the states, with most federal aid going to students, not institutions. Our president has no basis from which to threaten their funding because a school’s students pressured that school to disinvite someone, regardless of whether a few protestors crossed the line.

Why I March

The video statement above is a shortened version of this blog post: http://www.shardsofblue.com/blog/2017/real-world/activism/why-i-march-at-wmw/

And because it is impossible to post anything pro-woman without someone attacking me on the issue of abortion, here is my response to one such attack which read, “unless, of course, they are baby women”:

I am actually a pro-life feminist. However, it has been statistically shown that the best way to reduce abortions is to provide safe, affordable access to sexual education and reproductive health care. Demonizing women does far less good for them or for their unborn children than providing education, health care, and even some empathy for their difficult situations.