This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Liss' Trigger Warnings. Now sold in convenience packs of 20.
Recommended Reading:
Shaker Lisa: Casey Needs a Home
[TW] Marcella: Men Who Batter Overestimate Rate at Which Men Abuse
[TW] Cara: Insufficient Evidence
Mannion: What hath Reagan wrought? Part One
Angry Asian Man: Somewhere Inside: One Sister's Captivity in North Korea and the Other's Fight to Bring Her Home by Laura Ling & Lisa Ling
Andy: 13 Chicago Gay Rights Activists Arrested in ENDA Sit-In
Bri: Fat Fairies Are Lovely
Leave your links in comments...
Friday Blogaround
Britain Proposes Granting Rape Defendants Anonymity
[Trigger warning for sexual assault law.]
As one of its first orders of business, Britain's new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has proposed a policy that would ban the public identification of people accused of rape. Victims advocates in the UK have reacted negatively to the proposed ban, noting that there is potential to discourage survivors from coming forward and that the ban tacitly reinforces the erroneous narrative about the prevalence of false rape allegations.
Paul Mendelle QC, a prominent defense attorney and chair of the Criminal Bar Association, also quite rightly noted that a failure to publicly identify defendants undermines transparency: "In general, trials should be open to public scrutiny, so that justice may not only be done but be seen to be done. Anonymous trials run counter to that principle."
So there are the primary arguments against the proposed ban, which are wholly compelling.
But… I nonetheless have mixed feelings about granting anonymity to rape defendants—because there is some inherent value to survivors of rape in their alleged attackers not being publicly identified. It will help protect victims' identities, for a start, which is no small thing, especially to accusers who desperately want to remain anonymous. Women who are assaulted by men who are famous, for example, will not have the crushing weight of an international media bearing down on them as they try to protect their privacy. They will be insulated from the usual disgusting charges of fame- and fortune-seeking.
That has the capacity to actually encourage victims to come forward.
But… Back on the other hand again, it's easy to imagine how the guarantee of anonymity works in the favor of serial assaulters in particular. Consider the case of Ben Roethlisberger, for instance, who has been thrice accused of sexual assault with no charges yet filed. It is, in my estimation, important that information is public, for a variety of reasons.
And then there is this: What support I have for the proposed ban by virtue of its potential to work in survivors' favor, is struck through with a steely bolt of regret based on the knowledge that the policy was designed to shield accused rapists, rather than their victims.
What I'm left with is this: Britain has a 6.5% conviction rate for rape. Surely there are more urgent reforms that need to be made with regard to sex crimes than shielding the accused.
[H/T to Shakers Gegi, Fox in the Snow, and RG.]
Still
[Trigger warning for sexual assault, death threats, fat hatred, disablist language, and probably some other heinous stuff.]
Some history: In 2007, I tried to take Shakesville onto its own server. For reasons and by means I don't pretend to know, we attracted the attention of some very determined (and rather notable, if you read about this sort of thing) spammers who registered their objection to Shakesville's very existence by slamming us from here to Helsinki and back again. With the assistance of an extremely tech-savvy, talented, and generous gentleman, CW—who is also the lovely Mustang Bobby's brother (and whose résumé, suffice it to say, shows decidedly more impressive things than donating time as Shakesville's webmaster)—we finally blocked the spam.
Our self-appointed nemeses responded by hacking the fuck out of the site.
CW tried valiantly to stop the onslaught, to no avail. He said he'd never seen anything like it, particularly because of the way in which they were targeting the site.
It was, evidently, something about the combination of a fat woman who does fat acceptance and anti-rape advocacy that had piqued their ire—because every post about fat acceptance or sexual assault brought a new round of "Fuck, the site's down again." This post, of all things, an innocuous post about fat and beauty, was truly the beginning of the end. The site crumbled under the strength of the attack.
I don't know what put me, in particular, on their radar—or, perhaps more accurately, in their virtual crosshairs. I'm hardly the only fat survivor who produces this type of content, but, whatever the mysterious reason for the assault on the site, I retreated behind Google's massive firewall, where Shakesville remains.
All of which I share to explain, for the benefit of Shakers who have recently arrived, why this thread (to which I direct you with a strong trigger warning) is not in the standard archives, but instead in what is the weird three-month record of that drama.
That thread, ugh that thread, is what we refer to as the Unmoderated Rape Thread, where every comment of any tenor left was allowed to appear on the page, in response to my post criticizing "shock jocks" Opie and Anthony for a bit in which one of their guests "hilariously" talks about "fucking to death" former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former First Lady Laura Bush.
The Unmoderated Rape Thread is a collection of some of the most vicious misogyny, fat hatred, disablism, rape threats, and death threats you will hopefully ever have the displeasure to encounter.
And the reason I bring it up again today is because it got a new comment this morning.
Get a sense of humor… enjoy life…. learn to laugh…. or get out of our way. We have a GOOD life to live. Turn it off retards
Three years later.
Three years later, and there are still people who feel the irresistible need to exhort me to "get a sense of humor," despite my having written, right in the post: "Naturally, I'll be called a humorless feminist. Fine. If not laughing at a bunch of men sitting around talking about fucking women to death makes me a humorless feminist, then I wear the badge proudly—because I'm not just a humorless feminist; I'm a bitch who was nearly fucked to death. Isn't that just fucking hilarious?"
(It's Fat Princess on steroids.)
"Get out of our way," urges the commenter, proudly aligning hirself with the clamoring horde whose defining ideology is "People Who Object to Rape Deserve to Be Raped" and whose intellectual capacity for expressing said philosophy ranges from
The only tragedy is that a bullet didn't rip through your brainstem after you were used for your one and only purpose in this world. You should consider yourself lucky that some man finds a hideous troll like yourself rape-able.
—to
YOU ARE A STUPID WHORE, that WAS LUCKY TO GET FUCKED UP THE ASS!!!! STOP COMPLAINING, FAT WHORE!!!! YOU'RE PROBABLY TOO UGLY TO GET RAPED!!!! YOU DESERVE TO BE ABUSED, YOU FAT FUCKING CUNT WHORE!!!!!! SPREAD YOUR LEGS, AND TAKE MY HARD COCK IN YOUR HAIRY VAGINA!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NEED SOME DISCIPLINE, WHORE!!!!!! SMACK!!!! WHACK!!!!!!! OWWWWW!!!!!!!!!! ME TARZAN, YOU JANE!!!!!!!!!
It's difficult to imagine the profound corruption of empathy and decency that creates in a person the unshakable compulsion to try to silence an anti-rape advocate three years after the fact.
Easier to understand is this: Such obligatory displays of menacing tribalism—get out of our way—are a creation of the rape culture, which depends on its monstrous progeny for its continued survival.
The rape culture creates the narratives which sustains it, then sends its horrible little memes out into the world, where they insinuate themselves into every last nook and cranny of the larger culture, disguising themselves as conventional wisdom and jokes and other deceptively reasonable things. And anti-rape advocates hunt them down, teasing them out of the various strands of the culture, wrenching them from the shadows where they lurk or revealing them hiding in plain sight, deconstructing them, picking them apart, exposing them to anyone standing nearby.
That's when the jack-booted enforcers of the rape culture show up to silence us. Even three years after the fact.
And so it goes. Tidal wave against teaspoon.
I am tempted, momentarily, to be discouraged by a comment left on a three-year-old post, reiterating the same tired bullshit, so tiresome, so predictable, as if the comment were left not by an actual human being, but instead some demonic ventriloquist's dummy being worked by the rape culture itself (or maybe just Bernard-Henri Lévy).
But then I see the comment for what it is: Desperate, pathetic, flailing, insecure, weak. They may be strong in number, but I have the strength of rectitude.
Tidal wave against teaspoon.
The author wrings out her shirtfront and gets back to work.
Senate Passes Financial Reform Bill
Last night, the Senate passed a financial reform bill which creates/restores financial rules and regulations ostensibly designed to prevent another economic clusterfucktastrophe triggered by irresponsible lending, unchecked greed, and other chicanery on Wall Street.
In providing for the most profound remaking of financial regulations since the Great Depression, the legislation would create a new consumer-protection watchdog housed at the Federal Reserve to prevent abuse in mortgage, auto and credit card lending. It also would give the government power to wind down large failing financial firms and set up a council of federal overseers to police the financial landscape for risks to the global economy. Moreover, the legislation would establish oversight of the vast market in financial instruments known as derivatives, impose new restrictions on credit rating agencies and give shareholders a say in corporate affairs.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said: "When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a screeching halt" (if only!) while Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), "the GOP's top financial reform negotiator," said the bill is "a liberal activist's dream come true" (if only!).
Democratic Senators Maria Cantwell and Russ Feingold voted against the bill because it did not go far enough. Four Republican Senators—Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, and Scott Brown—voted with the Democrats to pass the bill.
The US Chamber of Commerce hates it, which means it's pretty good, even if imperfect.
And some Senate Democrats showed shocking evidence of spine-ownership during the process: The original draft of the bill introduced by Senator Chris Dodd, chairman of the banking committee—who marshaled the bill through the Senate, navigating a Republican filibuster and dozens of amendments in the process—was more liberal, but Dodd had to water it down after lobbyists and the Obama administration attacked the bill for being too far-reaching. But many of those aforementioned amendments reinfused the bill with liberal ideals:
For instance, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, proposed dramatic restrictions on trading in derivatives, including a provision that could force big banks to spin off the lucrative business altogether. Her language was added to Dodd's bill and endured, despite efforts by the administration, lobbyists and Dodd himself to temper it.The bill now goes into conference so that the House and Senate versions can be resolved before the final bill is sent to the President. In a weird and unusual twist, the Senate version is now actually more liberal than the House version, despite the Senate being the more conservative of the two houses, so resolution should be pretty swift.
In the meantime, other senators added tough amendments that, for example, would place new restrictions on credit rating agencies, force big banks to meet higher capital requirements and limit the fees that merchants have to pay banks when a customer uses a credit or debit card.
Good Morning!
[Trigger warning for discussions of human trafficking at the link.]
Please start your day by reading what is one of the best uses of the internet that any of us will likely ever witness.
Serious blub warning.
The other day, I took a picture of this Cromcrast show description, the first line of which Kenny Blogginz and I found amusing:
I was going to use it as a punchline in some post or other at some point, but instead I think it belongs here. "The Internet is not just for emails and Googling fun facts anymore." Indeed not.
And thank Maude for that.
[H/T to Shaker puellasolis.]
Question of the Day
What was the first album you ever owned? I'm talking real, grown up record. Something you purchased or were given that made you feel like you'd finally outgrown Disney or Kidz Bop or whatever.
Mine was The Stray Cats' US debut Built For Speed. My favourite aunt gave it to me as a Christmas gift in 1982. I'm listening to it now. I still love it.
Quote of the Day
"I'm in total agreement with Rand Paul [that businesses should be allowed to determine whether they are going to discriminate on the basis of race]. You can call it public accommodation, and it is, but it's a private business. And if a private business wants to say, 'We don't want any blond anchorwomen or mustached guys,' it ought to be their right. Are we going to say to the black students' association they have to take white people, or the gay softball association they have to take straight people? We should have freedom of association in America."—Fox hack and total genius John Stossel.
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Soaking In It
[Trigger warning for sexual assault.]
I used to run a series called "Rape Culture: We're Soaking in It" (explanation here) which hasn't had an entry in a year or so, and which has essentially been usurped by the Today in Rape Culture tag—but today I was reminded of the "we're soaking in it" moniker by a truly shocking example of how reflections of the rape culture permeate even the most unexpected spaces.
Shaker Muz sent me the link to a massive story in The New Yorker (the abstract for which is here, although you've got to be a subscriber to access the whole thing). The piece is broadly about the trial of Mazoltuv (Marina) Borukhova and Mikhail Mallayev for the murder of Borukhova's estranged husband, Daniel Malakov, but is more specifically about the idiosyncrasies and prejudices of the people involved, and what role those may have played in the trial, which ended in Borukhova's and Mallayev's convictions.
The author, Janet Malcolm, paints an interesting picture in particular of how those idiosyncrasies and prejudices may have damned Borukhova, irrespective of her actual innocence of guilt—the habit of the prosecutor and the judge of demeaning her by calling her "Miss" instead of "Doctor"; the various forms of Othering that went on by virtue of her being a woman, an immigrant, a Bukharan Jew; the conclusions that were drawn because she is well-educated and not demonstrably emotive; the judgments made about her on the basis of her mothering; how she was seen as "unsympathetic" because of all these things. It is, in many ways, a compelling story of the many manifestations of misogyny.
But then, toward the end of this titanic article, comes this stunning passage (emphasis mine), which refers to Borukhova's allegation that she had walked in on her husband kissing their young daughter's vulva—her explanation for why their daughter (Michelle) screamed when forced into visitations with her father, in contradiction to the advocate who asserted in language suspiciously reminiscent of Father's Rights rhetoric, that Borukhova had turned the little girl against her father:
Here we come to another of the questions about Borukhova that blur her portrait and give it its strange tinge. Why did she keep harping on the sexual abuse? If Daniel's "grave misconduct directed at the vagina of his young daughter" (or what [Borukhova's attorney] called "inappropriate touching") actually occurred, it surely wasn't the cause of the child's fear of him - it was merely kinky. It would have served Borukhova better - it would have been rational and logical - to connect Michelle's fearful, clinging behavior during the visits to scary scenes of domestic violence.I am left breathless with astonishment that anyone, anywhere, with any sense of decency, could categorize a father kissing his own baby daughter's genitals as "merely kinky," and in no conceivable way capable of generating the abject fear that would cause a child to cling fearfully to her mother at the prospect of being left in her father's care.
And not only did Janet Malcolm make this stunning claim, but the proof-readers and editors and everyone who saw this piece before it went into print in the pages of The New Yorker all apparently felt it was totally appropriate for publication.
Yikes.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
The Style Council: "Shout to the Top!"
(Mick, you're kind of scaring me in this video.)
This is a real thing in the world.
Meet the London 2012 Olympics mascot Wenlock (left, named after the Shropshire town of Much Wenlock, which hosted a precursor to the modern Olympics in the 1850s) and the London 2012 Paralympic mascot Mandeville (right, named after the Buckinghamshire town in which the precursor to the modern Paralympics was founded):
And their graphical avatars:
If you're looking at these images and asking yourself: Are the mascots to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games a pair of one-eyed monsters? the answer is yes. Yes they are.
Wenlock and Mandeville are pretty great names. I would have gone for John Thomas and Willy Knob, but that's just me.
Dog-Whistling With Lamar
by Shaker Maud, who is currently contemplating whether to become a contributor, or remain Shakesville's world champion guest poster.
Via The Maddow Blog comes this, uh, colorful, if ever-so-lightly veiled, comparison by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander (R-acist) between the way the people of New Orleans and the people of Tennessee deal with adversity.
In a column in defense of Congressional earmarks posted yesterday on the blog Tennessean.com, Alexander writes:
Just last week, the president asked for specific appropriations for the Gulf Coast oil spill, but not for flooding in 52 Tennessee counties. I did ask, and the Senate Committee approved. I did not want Washington to overlook the worst natural disaster since the president took office just because Tennesseans are cleaning up and helping one another instead of complaining and looting.The flooding in Tennessee was apparently not viewed by the national media as being as sexy a story as the big oil blowout in the Gulf, and received far less coverage than it likely would have if that event had not preceded it. It did not, however, cause anything like the number of deaths nor as widespread destruction as Hurricane Katrina. But Sen. Alexander suggests there's also a danger that Tenneseeans might receive less help in the clean-up from the federal government simply because they are so - what's the word? - civilized - and therefore easy to overlook. Unlike some people, if you know what he means. And I think that you do.
In fact, as the Maddow Blog post points out, there were some minor incidents of Tennesseeans attempting to take advantage of flood victims by relieving them of possessions, or of cash, through price-gouging. There were not, however, the extreme, false stories of wild criminal behavior by Tennesseeans that the media spit out about residents of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.
But Sen. Alexander just seems to have a natural affinity for cross-cultural behavioral comparisons which he feels reflect poorly on pretty much any group of which he is not a part of. In February, Sen. Alexander said the potential use of the reconciliation process to pass some elements of health care reform legislation would be a "Political Kamikaze Mission" by Democrats.
Dear Abby and Disablism
by Shaker Lydia Encyclopedia
[Trigger warning for dehumanization.]
I don't often read newspapers. I depend on the internet for my news, but when I'm home in Hawaii, I'll often read through the newspaper, more out of bored curiosity than the expectation of hard-hitting news. Among those time-fillers is Dear Abby, advice columnist. One of yesterday's letters provided an example of jaw-dropping disablism that I had to comment on (it's a perfect demonstration of that disablism and eugenic overtones towards disabled people I was addressing in this post):
DEAR ABBY: My husband and I have a 24-year-old developmentally disabled son who lives with us. Three months ago, he met a nice girl at the mental health program he attends. They hold hands, go to the movies and occasionally smooch.Where to begin? Let's start with the language the 'friend' in the letter used. "Fixed". When someone talks about getting 'fixed' in that sense, it is usually directed towards a household pet in need of spaying/neutering so that they won't spray on furniture or display aggressive behaviour. Do I even need to explain the history of comparing people who are developmentally disabled to animals, and using such logic to justify their horrible treatment, including but not limited to torture, deprivation of essentials, and yes, sterilization? How far have we come in how we view disabled people? If this friend's attitude is any indication, not very far.
Recently, "Jasper" had a mark on his neck. We were over at a friend's house for dinner when my best friend noticed the mark. She then proceeded to tell me I should consider getting Jasper "fixed." At first, I wasn't sure I'd heard her correctly, so I asked her to repeat it. I am shocked that she thinks I should have my son sterilized.
Jasper is diagnosed with ADD and Asperger's syndrome. According to his mental health counselor, he could someday be married, have children and lead a productive, independent life. It just may take him longer to get to that point in comparison with his peers.
How should I respond to my friend about her suggestion? When she made it, I didn't know what to say. -- SPEECHLESS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
The general attitude is problematic as well. There is this long-standing bias against the idea of people with developmental disabilities having children, labouring under the notion that since we "can barely take care of ourselves" we could never be expected to raise children. It is assumed that only the neurotypical populace is capable of raising children.
As someone who has long wanted to have children, but was for many years pressured not to because of the stereotypes surrounding the nature of autism ("you won't bond with the child, you won't be able to be there for them emotionally, you might hurt them without realizing it, how will you manage when you can't drive/use a public restroom/do your taxes on your own?"), this type of rhetoric disgusts me and shakes me to my core.
Developmentally disabled children are treated as special "burdens" to be borne by saintly neurotypical able-bodied parents, and as adults, we are denied the chance to become parents ourselves, because we've shifted in neurotypical eyes from being an adorable burden to a worrisome burden. No thoughts or considerations on what we desire in terms of our reproductive rights and parenthood; it's frequently assumed these topics are beyond our understanding.
I understand perfectly. I am a person with autism, who deserves the chance to make my own choices about my body and my future. It's a matter of human rights and dignity which have been denied to us for far too long.
Abby herself gives a somewhat problematic response:
DEAR SPEECHLESS: If you still want to maintain the friendship with the woman, tell her what your son's mental health counselor said about his prospects for the future. But first, if you haven't already, make sure Jasper clearly understands everything he needs to know to protect himself and his nice girlfriend from premature parenthood.While explaining that her son is capable and has a health professional confirm this is fine, it reinforces this idea that only select, "high functioning" (a problematic term in itself, hence the quotation marks) people with disabilities deserve to make these decisions, rather than it being a blanket issue of human rights.
There is also the matter of condescending language: "his nice girlfriend" sounds like something you say to a child, not an adult who is going to be discussing contraceptive techniques.
And by being silent on the idea that "Jasper" and his girlfriend could some day become parents when they are ready, Abby reinforces this idea that developmentally disabled people having children is not recommended or appropriate. It's not exactly the strong response to such horrible eliminationist, dehumanizing rhetoric I was hoping for. Very rarely do people who have neurotypical privilege consider the horrifying implications of such rhetoric, as it doesn't affect them and their reproductive choices like it does mine.
I, as a person with autism, am not an animal in need of being "fixed". "Jasper" and his partner do not need to be "fixed". No developmentally disabled person is in need of "fixing". We're not going to tolerate eliminationist, disablist rhetoric telling us that our own bodies and minds cannot be trusted to our own judgment.
Shaxco Presents
[Trigger warning for Polanski shit.]
Inspired by noted douchebag Xavier Beauvois, our Anti-Polanksi Tee is available in four styles:
Organic Women's Shirt
Women's Plus Size V-Neck
Women's Plus Size Scoop Neck
Organic Men's Fitted Shirt
Buy one today.
Rand Paul: Not Just an Ignorant Disablist; An Unapologetic Racist, Too!
Rand Paul, Kentucky's Republican nominee for the US Senate, is a multifaceted fellow. He's not merely a Tea Partying dipshit, nor is he just an ignorant disablist; he is also an unapologetic racist!
Below is an excerpt from a recent editorial board interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, in which Paul discusses with the interviewer his disagreements with the Civil Rights Act. Sure, he supports the idea of abolishing federally mandated segregation and discrimination, but the Civil Rights Act had to get all ZANY and require private enterprises to allow non-white people into their establishments. And that's anathema to FREEDOM!
[Full transcript below.]
To assert that rescinding (the most obvious) government-sanctioned racism was the end of institutional racism is necessarily predicated on an absurd misunderstanding of what constitutes institutional bias and thus what is required to solve it.
The other piece that particularly interested me was this:
I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so you understand that people can say bad things; it's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior. But, if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups, we don't associate with those people.By the rationale Paul is using here, he not only doesn't support the Civil Rights Act; he also doesn't support the criminalization of murder. We should just deal with murderers by giving them a stern talking to and defriending them on Facebook.
I don't guess I need to point out how truly, deeply stupid this argument really is.
Relatedly, this isn't the first time I've seen a Free Speech Absolutist compare behavior and speech without seemingly any regard whatsoever for the fact that we, in fact, don't respond to the most egregious behavior of our fellow citizens merely by criticizing them or shunning them, but by making those behaviors illegal.
And no one goes around caterwauling about slippery slopes because we've criminalized murder. "Next thing you know, they'll be putting people in jail for using airhorns!" No, we consider ourselves eminently capable of discerning between behavior that is merely obnoxious and behavior that is a menace to the public good.
Even regarding crimes about which many people, myself included, argue that criminalization and imprisonment is absurd (see: possession and/or personal use of recreational drugs that did not involve operating a vehicle or in any way endangering others), no one's arguing we should criminalize no behavior at all to avoid overreaching. We debate the merits of criminalizing individual crimes.
So the idea that Free Speech must be treated as an all-or-nothing right, even if that speech includes the linguistic equivalent of a violent community menace (e.g. hate speech), is just a cop-out to avoid the admittedly challenging task of ensuring that marginalized populations aren't targeted by unduly privileged speech.
I'm not surprised that Paul doesn't care about speech that entrenches the marginalization of non-privileged people, but even I'm shocked that he would be so daft as to unintentionally suggest that his Free Speech Absolutism would be applicable to "objectionable" behavior, in the course of trying to defend "Whites Only" policies.
Interviewer: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that.
Interviewer: But…?
Paul: [laughs heartily] You had to ask me the "but." Um, I don't like the idea of telling private business owners—I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant—but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.
Interviewer: And then it was extended by most localities to include all—
Paul: Right.
Interviewer: Would you have favored those local— [crosstalk]?
Paul: Well, on a local basis, it might be a little different. And the thing is, is I would speak out in favor of it, I mean—I'm, I look at like the speeches of Martin Luther King and, I tell ya, I become emotional watches the speeches of Martin Luther King. I loved it, because he was a great, transformative figure, but he was a believer. What I don't like most about politics is almost none of them are believers, and he was a true believer, and he fought government injustice—and those were governmental rules and laws that forbid people, you know, from riding the bus or sitting in certain parts of the bus, or drinking water from public fountains. All of that should have, should have ended, and I think was a, a great occurrence that it did.
Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say it's abhorrent, um, but, the hard part—and this is the hard part about believing in freedom—is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example, you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. And, uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, you know, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so you understand that people can say bad things; it's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior. But, if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups, we don't associate with those people.
Interviewer: But it's different with race, because for, certainly for 100 years, uh, discrimination based on race was codified under federal law.
Paul: Exactly. It's institutionalized. And that's why we had to end all of the institutional racism and, um, I have, uh, I'm in favor completely of that.
For All of Us
by Shaker EastSideKate, a feminist teacher/scholar/mother/partner/derbygirl from Upstate New York.
[Trigger Warning for intense transphobia, violence, and suicide. Trigger Warning applies to all links.]
So. Yesterday afternoon I came across a particularly depressing piece of news via Helen (by way of folks at FORGE). Two weeks ago, Dana Larkin (also known as Dade and Chanel), a 26-year-old transsexual woman from Milwaukee was murdered. Before I say anything further, I want to send my condolences and best wishes to Chanel's friends and family, as well as to my trans brothers and sisters in Milwaukee and throughout Wisconsin.
Um. So, first of all, fuck. Second, when I was a 26-year-old transsexual woman hanging out in the outskirts of Milwaukee, I sure as hell didn't have the courage to be a leader in my community.
And third: Again? Really? Again?
It wasn't supposed to be like this. It shouldn't have to be like this. Before I came out, I spent a ton of time listening to GenderTalk, the indispensable radio program (and podcast) out of Boston. One of the things I remember are the fatalistic references to the ways that violence and death surround trans peoples' lives. I didn't quite get it back then. I was still a young white kid, college educated, raised in the suburbs. Clearly, I was part of a different world.
Perhaps I am. Transsexual people, as a group, are exceedingly diverse. My many privileges and interests do keep me disconnected from large segments of trans communities.
However. I present to you a brief timeline:
In 2006, I begin the process of coming out, with the help and support of therapists in Milwaukee and the (largely older, white) trans people who could afford their services.
In 2007, a mile from my house In Madison, Nigel Head stabbed Bret Turner (who was dressed in women's clothing, which I recall being described by the local press in excruciating detail at the time) 14 times, after 'becoming upset during sex.' I'm not sure what was more rattling, a hate crime in the middle of my formerly cozy neighborhood, or the disinterest of the local media.
In early 2008, Felicia Melton-Smith, a trans woman and active member of the LGBT community in Madison was murdered while vacationing in Mexico.
On November 14, 2008, shortly after I had moved to Syracuse, Dwight DeLee murdered Latiesha Green (and wounded her brother, Moses Cannon) outside of a party a couple of miles from my new home. I remember my frustration turning to tears, my partner and I racing down one-way streets in the hopes of finding the candlelight vigil, thinking for a moment that being there would make everything all right. The trial of Dwight DeLee colors my summer of 2009, and I still carry the scars on multiple levels.
And now Chanel Larkin is dead.
I didn't know any of these people, and in many ways, I was disconnected from their lives. However far apart our lives were, we shared many bonds. We shared acquaintances, hang outs, communities. And it saddens me that I'll never get to meet any of them.
It's truly odd, the sensation I feel in processing this violence. I feel like I should have known these people. Why wasn't I active in the trans community in Madison? Why didn't I get out more? It's a bizarrely selfish yet selfless thing—I've lost so much in the deaths of these strangers. They could have done so much in this world, I could have learned from them, laughed with them, and...
That bizarre, shallow, guilt is not really the thing that lingers with me, though. I wonder who's next. I wonder why I'm so lucky. Someone I know will be murdered. Who? When? Me?
Maybe someone I know already has been murdered.
As I've grown, I've drifted in and out of various friendships and communities. Sad news makes me wish I was a more consistent participant. I should really talk to all the wonderful trans people I know, lest this be the last chance I get. How are all the wondrous friends and acquaintances I've made over the years, often in the dark, dank corners of the internet? I should get off-line, too; there are trans people in my own neighborhood. Even though I may not have much in common with many strangers, who knows, maybe we'd hit it off? And seriously, Milwaukee is a kick-ass town. I didn't even try to make friends when I was out there, though.
Speaking of drifting off the internet, I wonder about one of my dear, dear friends in particular. She was probably the closest friend I've had, outside of my own sweetie. For a good year or so, we'd chat online for hours at a time. We had both recently come out, and were still actively finding ourselves. We'd talk about the usual things; politics, pop culture, the times she'd be assaulted, that time I nearly was. I even let her hear my voice, as I was actively trying to unlearn the damage puberty had wrought. It wasn't much use; regardless of gender, Skyping with a Brit can be a disorienting experience.
One day my friend vanished from the internet. She had done this from time to time, plagued by the depression that stalks me and so many of my trans brothers and sisters. This time she didn't return. She was heading away to start university, and my optimistic interpretation is that she was "going stealth", dropping of the grid in a bid to survive. A week doesn't go by when I don't think of her. I hope she's okay; the world needs more women with quick, caustic wit.
In my experience, news of death travels slowly, if at all, in the trans universe. When the media bothers to acknowledge our existence, they rarely get our identities right. Blood relatives may or may not be family.
I still remember the unusually warm day I heard about Sarah. I had been in Syracuse for the better part of an hour. I was in town to interview for the job I now hold, educating largely working people who have decided to return to college. Sarah and I had long chats about her returning to college. She was several years younger than I, and full of excitement on many levels—I remember her going on and on about getting a career in fashion. We did talk about some of the other things trans people are wont to speak of—the isolation, the fear, the violence, the frustration in obtaining medical care. Her parents had found her several weeks prior to any of her online acquaintances connecting the dots. It shook many of us; I still think of her often, although on some level, it's necessary to get over such incidents.
Why is any of this necessary at all? It shouldn't be like this. Wondering who the violence will strike next, who is in what psychiatric ward, trying to keep it all together.
And yet here I am. Here all of us are. Stuck in a society that views some people as less than, and therefore, disposable. The issues that affect women, LGBQ people, people of color, poor people, working people and people with disabilities aren't actually different from each other, or from the issues facing trans people. Indeed, all of these identities intersect. It's an idea that's been around for some time, but it's urgently important one. We need to find a way to stop treating people as less than. For Chanel, for Sara, for all of us.
