Projective stupidity and Jesus

by Zinnia — 8 September 2011

Have you ever noticed how some people tend to assume you're just as dumb as they are? It's not that they're necessarily being patronizing or disingenuous, they're just genuinely ignorant. They expect you to believe what they're telling you because they believe it themselves. None of us are exempt from this, of course - we're all subject to our own limitations here. It just becomes especially striking when people make the most transparently terrible points, without even realizing how bad they are. And nowhere is this more apparent than with arguments for the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. Some people really seem to believe that I'll find these claims just as compelling as they do, to the point that they fail to anticipate even the most obvious responses. I have to second-guess myself on this every time, because I keep thinking I must have missed something - this couldn't possibly be what they're really saying. But it is. It's just that awful.

By far the most glaring oversight is when events from the Gospels are cited as supporting evidence for the alleged resurrection. This, of course, presumes that the contents of the Bible are factual and that all of this actually happened. If that were the case, there would be no need to refer to anything other than the resurrection story itself, because we've simply assumed that the Gospels are accurate. We could just point to the part with the resurrection, and say, "There it is!" But if we're trying to establish the veracity of the resurrection, then the contents of the books which recount that story can no more be assumed to be true than the very event in question.

Some people have claimed that the contents of the New Testament have remained largely intact and unchanged throughout the centuries, but that has nothing to do with whether the events it describes actually took place - unless humans only acquired the ability to write fiction some time after the first century A.D. But even if we grant that the events cited in favor of the resurrection really did happen as claimed, an actual resurrection of Jesus is hardly the only explanation for this, let alone the best or the most likely.

One common argument is that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. Apparently that alone is supposed to tell us something about whether he was actually divine. Yet many people throughout history have said they were the son of God, relatives of gods, or gods themselves. Was all of this true as well? After all, why would someone claim to be the son of God if they weren't? And yet most of them were probably wrong. The fact that someone has declared themselves divine says nothing about the truth of the matter.

It's also been said that Jesus supposedly showed exceptional and even supernatural moral wisdom, beyond the ability of any mere human to articulate. The rapid spread and modern prevalence of Christianity is often cited in support of this claim. But what part of his moral philosophy could not have been developed by regular people? Could no human mind figure out that pacifism, humility, personal virtue, honesty, kindness, loyalty and generosity can be good things? What about this is so difficult as to be accessible only to the divine? And if the success of Christianity is supposed to say something about its truth, what does the spread of Islam tell us? Is the validity of a religion contingent upon demographics now? Even if two billion people are Christians, that leaves five billion people who aren't. Is that supposed to inspire confidence?

Another key point of this argument is that after Jesus was buried, the stone closing the tomb was found to have been rolled away, and the tomb itself was empty. Has this never happened before or since? Was this the only occasion where a body went missing from a grave? It seems plausible that much like how they put the body in the tomb and rolled a stone in front of it, maybe someone removed the stone and took the body out. Does any of this really require the involvement of a god? Is that the only possible explanation for grave robbery? Of course, some people have claimed that there was a guard watching the tomb. Could this guard not have been bribed, or distracted, or a secret Christian, or missing for some reason? It seems we're meant to conclude that an act of God is somehow a better explanation than a guard being complicit or absent.

Apologists have also claimed that Jesus appeared to many people after his resurrection. And this does occur sometimes. It's just a question of what actually happened. There's a difference between people claiming to see something, believing they've seen something, and genuinely seeing something. These are not the same thing. Quite a few people throughout history have seen things that weren't really there, and most of the time when people see the dead, this doesn't indicate a resurrection. Jesus certainly isn't the only one to have appeared in this way, but I doubt that Protestants would give much credence to supposed apparitions of Mary that have been certified by the Catholic Church. Even great numbers of people have reported seeing things that didn't and couldn't happen, like the sun flying around the sky. This is the result of either willful self-deception, people going along with a popular trend, or an artifact of abnormal brain functioning. We know that this kind of thing can happen, so why does the alleged resurrection require any supernatural explanation?

Finally, many apologists have cited the conversion of various non-Christians who purportedly had every reason not to believe as evidence for the truth of the resurrection. If this is supposed to prove something, what does it mean when someone who desperately wants to believe in Christianity is nevertheless drawn to atheism? What if someone has every reason not to want to believe in Islam, but finds themselves convinced to become a Muslim anyway? This is hardly unique to Christianity.

As further evidence of the devotion of these converts, some people have pointed out that they refused to renounce their faith even when it led to their martyrdom. Would they really have faced death for the sake of a lie? Well, it's certainly possible. Maybe they were mistaken, or deluding themselves. Maybe they were just really stubborn. Do people only die for beliefs that are actually true? No. People have readily given their lives in the name of all kinds of non-Christian religions and philosophies, and this does nothing to establish their truth. Unwavering faith to the point of death is simply a non-denominational feature of humanity. If even Christians will dismiss the significance of this, how can they use the very same phenomenon in support of their own religion?

All of these arguments demonstrate a startling lack of imagination and an abject failure to consider the mere possibility that there could be other explanations. It just hasn't occurred to these people. And even if the resurrection of Jesus happened exactly as the Bible says, that still doesn't mean it was supernatural or an act of God. What if it was the work of aliens, or nanotechnology? Or aliens with nanotechnology? At least we know these things are actually possible. Does that sound ridiculous to you? So why does it make any more sense to believe that it was literally magic?

8 comments — Filed under ,

Yep, you're a bigot!

by Zinnia — 6 September 2011

Nowadays, one of the most common arguments made by opponents of gay marriage is that they would be considered bigots if gay marriage is legal. The National Organization for Marriage gets a lot of mileage out of the claim that children will be taught that their parents are bigoted, and people of faith will be seen as discriminatory. Recently, former senator Rick Santorum got into an argument with a high school student, where he complained:

I had Piers Morgan call me a bigot - because I believe what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to homosexuality, I'm a bigot. So now I'm a bigot, because I believe what the Bible teaches - now, 2000 years of teaching and moral theology is now bigoted.

Well, yeah! That's because it is. This fatuous argument reveals two important things about Mr. Santorum and other anti-gay Christians. First, they're much more concerned about being perceived as bigots than whether they might actually be bigoted. Second, they are unable to conceive of any kind of moral progress that could be inconvenient to their positions or contrary to a particular faith. The sheer self-absorption of this mindset is breathtaking. Imagine if any other prejudice were defended with such an argument. How seriously would we take the protests of white racists that they would be seen as bigots because of integration? How much would we care about the complaints of men that they would be considered bigoted if women are allowed to vote?

It's plain to see that the discomfort that bigoted people may have with their bigotry being recognized does nothing to change the fact that it is still bigotry. And the idea that we should accommodate their preferred self-perception by continuing to deny equal rights to the targets of their bigotry is so brazenly narcissistic it defies all comprehension. You are not that important! If you have to put up with being seen as bigoted so that people can finally receive their equality under the law, then you'll just have to deal with it. It's too bad you got the short end of the stick on this one, but if every hint of moral realization and social change was immediately quashed because some people want to be assured that they'll always be in the right, there would never be any kind of progress.

And no, your religion does not have the power to legitimize bigotry. Bigoted beliefs do not become excusable just because a church or a book endorses them. You don't get a pass on bigotry by claiming that a god agrees with you. People came up with the very same justifications for all kinds of prejudice. It changes nothing. Like it or not, your religion will evolve. It might deny this, it might lag behind, but religions are dragged along with the moral climate of society at large. The Catholic Church doesn't hold trials of alleged witches anymore. Mormon leaders decided that God changed his mind about allowing black people to be ordained. And some day, you will have to face the reality that your 2,000 years of moral theology are helpless next to a moment of moral reflection.

By focusing only on the legal aspects as the key factor in whether or not they're considered bigots, they've failed to understand that this is just a symptom of ongoing social progress. We already see them as bigots, and that's the very reason why the legal standing of gay people is now a point of contention. The moral validity of anti-gay prejudice has been cast into doubt, and homophobia is no longer regarded as an unquestionable constant of our society. Fighting this on a legal front is just trying to close the barn door after the horse is long gone. It's not going to stop anyone from seeing you for exactly what you are. And no law, whether earthly or divine, will change that. The only one who can keep you from being a bigot is yourself.

14 comments — Filed under , , , ,

Art appreciation: Robert Ryman's "The Elliott Room"

by Zinnia — 2 September 2011

In the modern wing of the Art Institute of Chicago, there is a gallery. This gallery contains The Elliott Room (Charter Series) by Robert Ryman. It is one of the most fascinating works of art I have ever seen.

The room features five pieces, which consist of unblemished expanses of white, interrupted only by sparse horizontal and vertical strips of metal, and affixed to the wall by evenly spaced, unassuming bolts. Within this highly limited set of variables, Ryman nevertheless explores a vast range of possibilities. Though the paintings may appear superficially similar, none of them are alike, and each piece projects its own unique character.

But the paintings themselves are not the only art in the room. This particular gallery is a dead end, with only one entrance, and a large window looking out on Millennium Park. And it is this arrangement that permits the emergence of a new and unintended kind of artwork. The first time my girlfriend and I viewed The Elliott Room, we stopped at the threshold and briefly looked around in confusion before leaving. Although we didn't know it at the time, we had found the key to appreciating the series on an entirely different level.

During our next visit to the museum, we took the time to stop and properly examine the work. The seating affords an excellent view of the entire gallery - including, most crucially, the entranceway. While contemplating the series, we gradually became aware of another part of the room: the audience.

We watched quietly and observed people's reactions upon first seeing Ryman's art. A woman with two children stood at the entrance, and turned back almost immediately. A middle-aged man paced around the room, bitterly cursing under his breath. A young couple walked up to the window, scarcely even noticing the artwork. Most people barely set foot in the room before realizing what it was and leaving in instant disappointment. And it was the funniest thing we had ever seen.

In fairness, if you haven't read the description, the series could perhaps be mistaken for wall mountings without any art on them. And the vast north-facing window often draws people's attention away from Ryman's work. But the interaction between the art and its audience is one of the most engaging features of the museum. It's a surprisingly evocative and challenging piece, and nowhere else did we witness such forceful reactions to an installation. In a way, the very act of putting this series on display has itself become a work of art. It may seem like one of the last pieces that would have the power to take on a life of its own and transcend the intentions of its creator, yet it does so effortlessly. And it is hilarious.

You don't need to struggle to understand anything about it. All you have to do is sit back and watch what happens. I highly recommend it.

1 comment — Filed under ,

Re: "Can't Even Go to the Park"

by Zinnia — 30 August 2011

Hi, Stacy. I heard about your encounters with gay couples in public places like parks and swimming pools, and I have to say, I find it hard to sympathize with almost any aspect of the life you've made for yourself.

Before I read your post, I thought that perhaps you had been witness to a public sex act or something similarly inappropriate. Instead, what you actually saw were two men rubbing elbows, and a lesbian couple taking their baby to the park. Apparently this was a good enough reason for you to stop taking your seven children outside, because they might see gay people and start asking questions. That was all it took for you to decide that you can hardly leave the house anymore for fear of people "imposing" their "immorality" on you.

You ask us, "is this freedom?" And I ask you: As opposed to what? Does your concept of freedom require that gay people must be excluded from all the places that you and your children might visit? Did you even consider for one moment what you are expecting of them? Just as you want to take your children to the park, so did that lesbian couple with their child. Yet you seem to think their family should be subject to the same exile that you've imposed upon your family. What is it that makes you special here? What gives you any greater claim to full participation in society than that family? Did it not occur to you that other people are just as fully human as you, and they want to be just as free to enjoy their lives? That is what freedom is, and that is what you do not understand.

Imagine individuals as a series of points spaced an equal distance from one another. Their freedoms are a circle of a certain radius that surrounds each of those points. Every circle is the same size. Now expand all of those circles simultaneously until their edges are touching, and no further. Those are the limits of our freedom, and yours. Nobody's freedom is larger or smaller than anyone else's. And nobody's freedom can intrude upon the freedom of others. If it did, those circles would begin to overlap, and just as your freedom would encroach upon someone else's, their freedom would intrude into yours as well. And if your supposed freedom extends so far as to banish people from the public sphere based only on your own personal morality, then everyone else is just as free to do that to you. You and your family would be equally subject to their whims, and that is not something you want. It is not something anyone should want.

Even you shy away from following your indignation all the way to its vile and unavoidable conclusion. But that is what you hint at when you say that you're "supposed to be able to influence what goes on" in your community. There are many things that you can influence, but that is not among them. You live in a world where not everyone operates according to your interpretation of Catholic morality, and they are not required to. When you say that you've been forced to "tolerate immorality", that is exactly right. It is a fact that you are always going to encounter people whose moral outlook does not align with yours. And just as you have the freedom to follow the dictates of your conscience, so do the rest of us. Nobody was rubbing elbows with you. Nobody is in a lesbian relationship with you. And you have every right to sit there at the park and meditate on how awful it is that gay people are allowed outside. But your expectation that they shouldn't be there because of your religious views is no more valid than someone else's expectation that you shouldn't leave the house without a veil. That is not freedom.

You say that you're not ready to answer any questions your children might have, and that they wouldn't be able to understand how a child can have two mothers. But these are not the same thing. Your own discomfort with gay people is not yet shared by your children, and they are perfectly able to grasp this if you would just explain it to them. You assume that your children would be just as disturbed by gay people as you are. The difference is that you've already spent years immersing yourself in a faith that teaches you to see other people as sinful, sexually perverted and inherently disordered. But they have not yet suffocated their own sense of right and wrong and replaced it with a catechism. They don't have any notion that these families are, as you put it, "living in sodomy". And they do not see their children as having been merely "assembled".

Your kids can and will understand that gay people exist. There is no way around that. But how they learn this is up to you. If you find yourself unprepared to tell your innocent children that these loving families should not exist and are headed for hell, good! Hold on to that bright sliver of humanity, and think about why this is such a difficult thing to tell a child who doesn't yet know why they should see these families as any different from yours. They haven't been taught to see sin and immorality at every turn. There is still hope for them, and you have a choice to make. You can raise them to respect other people as normal members of society, or you can teach them to be as frightened and hateful as you are.

And should you choose to smother your children in your own virulent ignorance, I sincerely hope that they will be repeatedly exposed to everyone and everything you despise, until they see the light where you could not.

I really don't know what particular need this religion fulfills for you, whether it's massive institutional approval and encouragement of your own prejudice, endless cliched narratives into which you can fit any conceivable life experience and act like you're a martyr, an appealing moral simplicity that drains all the complexity of nuance out of your life, or just something to give structure and meaning to your existence because you couldn't figure it out on your own. But understand this: We are not willing to pay the price for your own self-righteousness. If we're making it uncomfortable for you to share your bias, I'm glad to hear it. If we're making it harder for you to teach the next generation to hate us, we're going to keep doing that. And we have no obligation to conceal ourselves just for the sake of accommodating your faith-based bigotry. We're still going to be at the park. Will you?

15 comments — Filed under , , ,

Transcripts for June 2011

by Zinnia — 19 July 2011
2 comments — Filed under

My conversations with Bradley Manning

by Zinnia — 6 July 2011

Due to intense public interest, New York magazine and The Guardian have elected to publish my conversations with Bradley Manning ahead of time. I'll also be making them available for download. The only redactions that have been made are to remove the identifying information of certain individuals.

I'm releasing these logs because, thus far, all that we've heard from Bradley himself is in the form of incomplete conversations from Adrian Lamo. That was during an exceptional time in his life, and it doesn't give the whole picture of who Bradley is. I knew him as an intelligent, motivated and ambitious soldier who was dedicated to doing the best for his country, and I believe his words reflect that.

Regardless of what we might think of his actions, I feel it's important that we develop a more balanced understanding of Bradley and his personal views. It's my hope that this will provide valuable insight into someone who has undoubtedly made history.

Download: bradass87.zip
SHA1: 94d23df4df786c123191ce8b80fb484423004c0a
PGP signature

8 comments — Filed under ,

Statement on the New York story and Bradley Manning

by Zinnia — 4 July 2011

In February of 2009, I was contacted online by Private Bradley Manning, who has been implicated in the release of classified material to Wikileaks. He found me via my YouTube videos, and we spoke on several occasions until August of 2009. I haven't been in touch with him since then. Bradley first reached out to me because he was interested in the topics I discussed and felt that we were of a similar mindset. He talked to me about his upbringing and various experiences growing up, and told me about his work as an intelligence analyst with the Army. He did express some frustration at having to work within various regulations while doing his job, but this didn't seem to be a major problem for him, and I got the impression that he was relatively comfortable with his position.

Even though he spoke about living under Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and being attacked by his platoon for being gay, it seemed like he was making the best of his situation. He told me the Army was a diverse place full of people of every race, religion, and sexual orientation. He took pride in his work, even bragging about it at times. As he told me, he just wanted to make sure that everyone would get home to their families safely. He did say that he had to delete his blog and his YouTube channel for security reasons, and that he was sometimes an anonymous source for some of his friends, but at no time was there any indication that he was planning on leaking classified documents. As far as I know, he didn't begin doing so until several months later. To me, he never seemed like the kind of person who would do that. I lost touch with him after I changed my screen name, and I only recognized that he was the one who had been arrested after I saw his username in his conversations with Adrian Lamo. I have not been in contact with the authorities, or Adrian Lamo, or Wikileaks.

In March of this year, I was approached by a reporter with New York magazine who was interested in doing a story about my conversations with Bradley. That story has been published today. I provided them with our logs because I wanted them to see a different side of Bradley. I will be releasing the unredacted logs next week so that everyone can read them. After all of the stories portraying him as mentally unstable and revealing his problems at home and in the military, I felt it was important for people to know that there was a time when he seemed satisfied with his life. He had his struggles and hardships just as we all do, although I've come to learn that his difficulties ran deeper than I was aware of. But he also seemed like an everyday guy, someone who didn't stand out as a threat, and someone I never expected to do this.

In particular, I find it deplorable that some have attributed his alleged actions to his sexuality or his gender identity. There are thousands of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people around the world who serve their country with honor. They have not done anything like this, and who they are is not even remotely a reliable indicator that they would pose some kind of security risk. It's clear that Bradley was facing a variety of issues that were much more significant than simply being gay, and reducing all of this to his sexuality is extremely misleading. I'm also very disturbed that one of his counselors would apparently reveal private information about his gender identity. What they talked about is an intensely personal matter, and definitely not something to be broadcast to the entire world without his consent. If that is the case, this is highly unprofessional and a severe violation of trust.

Furthermore, the conditions under which Bradley was detained at Quantico are nothing short of outrageous. The extreme isolation in solitary confinement, forced nudity, and deprivation of even the most basic amenities may very well constitute a form of torture as recognized by various legal bodies. This treatment was blatantly inhumane and contrary to the recommendations of the brig psychiatrist. Bradley has not even been convicted of a crime, yet he was subject to indefensible punishment that can easily lead to permanent psychological trauma. There is no excuse for this. Likewise, it was clearly inappropriate for President Obama to declare that Bradley "broke the law" before his case has even gone to trial. That is the venue in which it will be determined whether he broke the law - not by the president's proclamation.

At the same time, I find that I can't entirely agree with the movement calling for Bradley to be released. While some have argued that his actions would be covered under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, I have to wonder whether this would be a viable defense. The Act is meant to protect servicemembers who report violations of the law. Although this may encompass the "Collateral Murder" video from Iraq which apparently shows the unlawful killing of civilians, as well as certain activities revealed in the war logs and diplomatic cables, it seems inevitable that not all of the leaked material is incriminating. Much of it, while certainly interesting, is merely embarrassing, or just mundane. While I don't know what process Bradley used to select the documents he allegedly chose to release, it seems implausible that he could have identified criminal wrongdoing in all of the hundreds of thousands of cables and war logs. His actions appear to have been mostly indiscriminate rather than targeted.

There is a reason why this is against the law. We don't know what's in the documents that Wikileaks and the press have chosen to withhold or redact. In this case, it's fortunate that the material was sent to them and could be examined before being released. Someone else could have just as easily posted it all on a public website or torrent, without making any effort to remove potentially dangerous information. While many feel that the release of these files has turned out to be positive for the world overall, it's troubling to think that the mass leaking of classified material is always something for us to look the other way on.

But whatever the outcome, Bradley deserves a fair trial - he's already been deprived of a speedy trial, and the effects of his prolonged confinement may have caused irreparable damage to his mental well-being. Regardless of what he might have done, he is a person, and he has rights. Everyone does. I still find myself wishing I had kept in touch with Bradley when he was considering whether to do this; perhaps things would have gone very differently for him. Against all odds, I hope that he'll be treated well, and I wish him the best.

If you'd like to contact me about this, I can be reached at zjemptv@gmail.com, or @ZJemptv on Twitter.

Zinnia Jones
July 4, 2011

16 comments — Filed under , , ,

Questions for Dr. Jillian T. Weiss

by Zinnia — 28 June 2011

At The Bilerico Project, Dr. Jillian T. Weiss writes about a man who has been seen at various airports while wearing women's clothing (picture at the link). Citing his particularly revealing manner of dress, she expresses concern that such attire could be covered under protections for gender expression that she's been working to promote, and hopes that it would not:

No amount of "gender expression rights" talk is going to pretty this one up. I do not support this man's right to fly clad only in female underwear.

However, her specific objections to his activity bring up a number of provocative issues that merit further exploration. First of all, must this even be an issue of gender? Certainly many would see it as such, and in the comments, Weiss claims that his clothing would not be a problem if he were female:

The thing is [...] that it would not be inappropriate for a young woman to wear that attire.

I find this improbable. On a woman, the same clothing would likely be considered just as inappropriate - suggestive, improper for the setting of air travel and excessively revealing. In his case, it also emphasizes the outline of his genitals. Note that this is only incidentally the result of his male anatomy, and not inherently due to cross-dressing and wearing women's underwear; Speedos for men have a similar structure and would pose the same problem. It's unlikely that this would be seen as any more appropriate, given the setting. So what's the real issue here? Tastefulness aside, it's his incomplete performance of femininity - wearing clothes associated with women while remaining visibly male. Is that, itself, reason enough to object to this? That someone is neglecting to adhere to a consistently masculine or feminine presentation? Weiss hints at this when elaborating on her standards:

I respect the right of everyone to dress how they wish, but only up to a point. Why draw a line, you ask? Am I not engaging in dressing behavior, as a transsexual, that was once not only considered improper but illegal?

Yes, I am. But that doesn't mean there are no boundaries whatsoever. True, the boundaries are artificial, socially created constructs. But I live in a real world, not a theoretical one. I dress like a 50-year old female academic (in law, not fashion or the arts), and, frankly, I look like one.

There may indeed be boundaries, but where are they drawn? Defending your own choice of dressing counter to your assigned birth sex by citing your consistently and traditionally feminine appearance, as well as your transsexual status, suggests that while this should be considered acceptable, anything beyond that may not be. Where does this leave bigender, genderqueer and other people who may present as both masculine and feminine, and whose gender identity may not cluster near male or female or even fall on that spectrum at all? Assuming the passenger in question is a cisgender man, suppose he presented as fully female in traditional and conservative attire - would that still be a problem? Is cross-dressing out of bounds? What about drag queens and other such performances?

It seems unreasonable to say that dressing against one's birth sex is something to be restricted to people who are actually transsexual. What cause is there for designating any variance outside of that to be an unacceptable expression of gender? If it's a question of gender-congruent appearance, this could even encompass trans people who, for whatever reason, are often read incorrectly and not seen as their target gender. Though I doubt this is what Weiss intended, her reasons for objecting in this instance have unfortunate implications:

When older gentlemen demand the right to fly while dressed only in female undergarments, it undermines the argument that gender identity and expression are serious issues deserving of protection, because the demand stretches the concepts involved beyond all recognition. [...]

It is heartbreaking to me to think of all those people who have worked so hard simply to have the plain dignity and respect that every human being should receive, to see this man playing dress up on airplanes "just for fun." This isn't subverting gender norms, it's strengthening them because it makes gender variance ridiculous.

Molding oneself and one's movement to avoid public ridicule is a dangerous game. The same pattern appears elsewhere: masculine gay men will sometimes demean femmes as an image problem and a shameful liability, and LGB people will blame trans people for holding back the progress of gay rights. Does this mean that such groups should be disowned by everyone else because they scare people away and hold back the movement? If we're to steer clear of whatever gender variance that people may find ridiculous, this will include far more than one oddball airline passenger. Even modestly dressed and gender-conforming trans people like Dr. Weiss may not be any more palatable to the wider public, simply due to the fact that they're transsexual. That's hardly a reason to cast them out for being politically inconvenient - but that's the price you pay when you restrict your movement to include only that which the majority approves of.

This accomplishes nothing. Those who are unable or unwilling to recognize that this man is distinct from trans people are ignorant enough that they likely wouldn't see trans people as any different in nature - while you may try to placate them with your normalcy, they'll still regard you as anything but normal. But those who support gender identity and gender expression protections will likely understand that his behavior has nothing to do with the genuine identities of transsexual, transgender and gender-variant people. Pandering to common bigotry is a hopeless endeavor that only serves to diminish your own base of support.

As if to prove her point by example, Weiss goes so far as to suggest that this is cause enough to disavow gender expression protections:

Is this what ENDA is going to mean -- that he can come dressed to work like this? Is this what we're asking employers to support? I am not fighting for that. I do not find it fabulous, and I do not find it amusing.

I'm not advocating arrests of crossdressers, and I uphold anyone's right to dress however they want in private. But I'm not defending this one. Is this what all my work on including statutory protections for "gender expression" comes down to? This makes me rethink that. Very seriously.

I tend to be suspicious of people whose support of minority rights is conditional rather than principled. It brings to mind the person who thinks their racism is justified by bad experiences with people of color, the person who would support marriage equality if they weren't so disgusted by pride parades - someone who sees their own personal discomfort as a reason to deny someone else their equal recognition as a person. And it raises the question of just how firm their support really was to begin with. Do they truly stand for people's rights, when someone exercising them in a manner they disapprove of is all it takes for them to change their minds?

Objecting to gender expression protections which would protect expressions of gender that you disagree with seems to be missing the point entirely. If such an attitude were universal, the emerging consensus would ensnare far more people than Dr. Weiss would likely be comfortable with - and it certainly would not be kind to trans people in the current social climate. If these laws only protected gender expression that everyone found acceptable, why would we even need them? She may be uncomfortable with this, but I'm far more uncomfortable with the alternative.

3 comments — Filed under , ,

Transcripts for May 2011

by Zinnia — 3 June 2011
1 comment — Filed under

Where to find my video transcripts

by Zinnia — 29 May 2011

In an effort to make my videos more accessible, I've added captions for the deaf or hard-of-hearing, as well as transcripts for easy reading and citation. The current transcripts are listed here. These are not available for every video yet, but new ones are being added all the time. Older transcripts will be provided by request. Thanks for watching!

3 comments — Filed under ,