shardsofblue

[shardsofblue]

Listen, I haven’t touched this account in years but I’m not going back to scrub it any time soon, so I’ll thank y’all to ignore my pretransition videos and any weird-ass takes I may have had. It’s been a journey.

[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.”

There is a great deal more nuance and defense of my position in the full post; please read it before discoursing about these assertions.

[shardsofblue]

Fabrice Monteiro x Bull Doff - The Missing Link.

[shardsofblue]

Upset about the wrong things

The pastor in the article linked below nails my thoughts exactly. Yes, it is possible to be upset about two things at once -- a small and a large issue -- but in my experience that is usually more of an excuse than a reality. In many of the examples cited, it is a matter of focusing on legalism instead of suffering. It's like the Pharisees who were upset that Jesus "worked" on the sabbath rather than being happy he had healed a man's blindness. Or like those who crossed to the other side of the road to avoid becoming unclean by interacting with the injured man rather than helping him as the Good Samaritan did. Or complaining after Jesus overturned the money-changers' tables that he should've used a less violent, more sympathetic method to make his point. The truth is that it's hard to wrap our minds around the idea that people may be really and truly suffering, if we haven't experienced that specific suffering ourselves. The reality of the pain, the scale of it, is too abstract for us. And, we want to believe that things couldn't really be that bad -- if it was, it would put a sudden and enormous burden on us to do something about it, and human nature resists that with an almost frantic desperation. "It would be like someone telling Jesus, just before he overturned the money-changer’s tables and grabbed a whip, how upset they were at the price of doves that year. It isn’t a false dichotomy. It’s a problem of scale." http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2017/06/christian-upset-wrong-things/

[shardsofblue]

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.

America needs science!

[shardsofblue]

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.

America needs science!

[shardsofblue]

Internet Privacy

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

*****

[shardsofblue]

My response: Yes, the culture of hyper-masculinity is toxic and crappy. But the ironic thing is, it stems largely from belittling the things that are traditionally thought of as female. Men aren't "supposed" to clean or cook or care for the kids because it's "women's work." Men are supposed to be the providers and defenders because women can't do it themselves. It's all tied up in the same ugly historic misogyny, leading to suppression of individuality for both genders. That's part of why both genders will benefit from acknowledging and fixing the root cause. As for the depiction of men on TV as the "dumb guy" -- that depiction sucks. I personally think it's partly a reaction by women to being talked down to by men so much over the years; a fictional outlet to feel some empowerment and express some frustration. I don't think it's healthy, but again, I think it's a reaction to misogyny, not proof against misogyny. Keep in mind men also have literal thousands of media from which to choose that paints the gender in various lights. For women, our pool is much smaller, but we still get screamed at (often literally) for wanting more representation. Male is still seen as the default. Yes, men have plenty of gendered sexism against them. But in many ways, the root cause is still a culture that devalues women. And if you're a man, and someone makes a film with a majority male cast, no one will bat an eye. Then there's Ghostbusters 2016. 😆 Don't even get me started how a vast majority of sexism against women has us fearing for our physical safety and bodily autonomy, while the majority of male complains are that people will laugh at them. I honestly don't want to belittle anti-male sexism, but this is a true thing. Being laughed at sucks, but being raped is a whole other level. Happy International Women's Day

[shardsofblue]

Globalism vs Globalization

#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.

Thus posing the two ideas as separate, but not directly related as opposites.

[shardsofblue]

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.

It’s time to get serious. Our goal has to be justice for all -- economic justice, social justice, and environmental justice. Let’s work for justice.”

[shardsofblue]

Christians & Governmental Authority

"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.

For Christians to imply that the godly response to these difficult times is to passively defer to authority is dangerous, and I thoroughly reject it. We must submit our consciences to the Spirit, not to our current governmental leaders. As Christian citizens of the United States, we have an obligation to speak out when we feel the weight of our consciences against governmental actions. 

[shardsofblue]

From Clay Smalley on Facebook. Here is the full post: Hi liberal friends, we need to talk about Free Speech. The Alt-Right has been working hard over the last few years to redefine what Free Speech means. They've succeeded, and many of you have fallen victim to it. Let's be clear: Free Speech: ✅ the right to not be punished by the government for your words ✅ the right to peacefully gather to express your views NOT Free Speech: 🚫 the right to have a platform 🚫 the right to be heard 🚫 the right to speak without negative consequences 🚫 the right to be respected for your views 🚫 the right to not have other citizens drown out your speech 🚫 the right to have your opinions published on a website Notice how these "rights" imply that all speech is valuable and worth hearing. They imply that it isn't right for citizens to be outraged when someone says something harmful. On the contrary, Free Speech PROTECTS every citizen's right to express their outrage. When you say "all opinions matter", you end up supporting the most privileged people who already have the loudest voices. This helps further the Alt-Right's agenda, and they know it. You're throwing all marginalized groups under the bus - these are the people who need Free Speech protections the most.

[shardsofblue]

UC Berkley, Yiannopoulos, & Free Speech

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.

Additionally, Trump misappropriated terms like “free speech” to apply to the speaker and not the protestors, while threatening federal interference in the school’s sovereign decision-making, rather than acknowledging a possible problem and seeking a solution. This is a strong-man tactic that, while not overt, carries whiffs of fascism, especially considering who the speaker is and the overall context of the current administration.

[shardsofblue]

History repeats.

[shardsofblue]

The one on top was institutionalized government action to suppress dissent and free thought. The one on the bottom was angry citizens going too far in expressing their outrage at a neo-Nazi being given a platform to spew his hate at their school. They are not equivalent.

[shardsofblue]

How to call your reps when you have social anxiety

When you struggle with your mental health on a daily basis, it can be hard to take action on the things that matter most to you. The mental barriers anxiety creates often appear insurmountable. But sometimes, when you really need to, you can break those barriers down. This week, with encouragement from some great people on the internet, I pushed against my anxiety and made some calls to members of our government. Here’s a comic about how you can do that, too. (Resources and transcript below.)

Motivational resources: There are a lot! Here are a few I really like:

Emily Ellsworth explains why calling is the most effective way to reach your congressperson.

Sharon Wong posted a great series of tweets that helped me manage my phone anxiety and make some calls.

Kelsey is tweeting pretty much daily with advice and reminders about calling representatives. I found this tweet an especially great reminder that calls aren’t nearly as big a deal as anxiety makes them out to be.

Informational resources: There are a lot of these, as well! These three are good places to start:

Find your representative at house.gov

Find your senators at senate.gov

Use the “We’re His Problem Now” scripts when calling (or write your own!)

Keep reading

[shardsofblue]

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.

Meanwhile, children are contracting asthma from pollution and dying from lack of access to proper health care. They are being poisoned by unsafe drinking water in Flint, MI. They are living in poverty and on the streets because of unfair housing policies and unlivable wages. All of these issues were significantly represented at this march. If we cannot come together around such crucial issues, the myopic focus on abortion will do great harm to our baby women and adults, alike.