Everywhere I look today it’s all about Tiger, and I don’t mean Tony. I’ve only been following the story peripherally but know the gist of it: He cheated on his wife, got caught, and now there’s a big brouhaha as he apologizes on live TV. The last time I checked space shuttle launches were not given this much attention.
You have permission to dismiss this opinion as excessively cynical, but really, at the end of the day, who gives a crap? You could say that since it’s all over the news someone must, but then we get into a chicken-and-egg thing where you wonder if it’s only news because the media tells you it’s news. You can’t go into a supermarket or open up a major news website without seeing someone’s body, character, clothing or politics being held up for public scrutiny, and all signs point to it being a lucrative business.
But really, this whole Tiger Woods is just another example of a story we’ve heard dozens of times before. People cheating on their significant others is not news, and every year we get the same story with different names about people in high places behaving in tawdry ways that pretty much tells us the same thing, and yet we’re still expected to be shocked and appalled.
I don’t get it. Perhaps I’m just an unusually private person in this day and age, but I neither care nor particularly want to hear about people’s personal affairs, nor would I want my own plastered all over the front page for people to scrutinize. There are a few instances where I find it more justified, but those have specific conditions. I thought that the media coverage last year when the Governor of South Carolina ran off for a few days to visit his mistress it was a bit more legitimate, since when a head of state vanishes it is cause of concern, but after he was found the story devolved into the usual hand-wringing about men and power and the hypocrisy of a social conservative “family values” man engaging in an elicit affair. I’m willing to give the media a bit more slack with this one, since it was an elected official who engaged in this sort of behavior, but an athlete? That’s when I draw the line.
An elected official who has the power to make and enforce laws is also under public scrutiny as far as their character is concerned, since people want to know if the person they give their vote to is honest. If they cheat on their significant other and engage in hypocritical behavior it’s within the voter’s right to withhold their vote or vote for an opponent, but a golfer? Tiger Woods is famous because he can play golf well, and whether or not he cheats on his wife or not doesn’t affect that. Several of his sponsors have dropped him in the wake of this in order to preserve their image, but at the end of the day this really isn’t going to affect the lives of everyday people?
That’s the thing that bothers me about this “apology” to the American people. “Apology” implies that harm was done, but was anyone (other than his wife) really hurt by his actions? I’m not counting the sponsors who may have lost money on him, I’m talking about a more philosophical concept of harm. I know my reaction to this was to roll my eyes at both him and the media, but I have to wonder, is he apologizing because he’s honestly sorry or is it because there’s an idea that we “own” part of him, or is it the “I’m sorry because I got caught” apology that seems everywhere these days? We can debate his intentions and thoughts all we want, but at the end of the day it just doesn’t pass muster for me as something I should give a crap about. And where do we get off taking a clearly hurtful event for this family and shining a spotlight on them when we really have no stake in the outcome? Looking at all of this, I have to wonder if that's where the real harm in all this is occurring and if in fact it falls on us.
The question I’m continuing to ask as all this unfolds (and there is no indication that it will go away any time soon) is whether it is worth our time and attention, but all I have to do is glance at a magazine rack and see that a decent amount of people think it is.
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Schools, Normative Language in Policy and Gender
Coming of the heels of my first “What Does That Really Mean?” post about the word Normal, we have a story about dubious application of norms and normative language coming off the wire.
Justin Reynolds, a gay male student in Florida, was removed from class after coming to school in a v-neck shirt, blue jeans, high heeled boots and jewelry. He did it so he could make a presentation about transgender rights. He checked with his teacher first, and though the teacher discouraged him they did not explicitly tell him not to do it. Later in the day was removed from the school due to a dress code policy that states that student’s clothing should be "keeping with their gender", and that a student can be removed if their clothing is "inappropriate" and "disrupts the school process".
Besides issues about whether under that logic girls shouldn’t be allowed to wear typically “male” clothing (and I can tell right away that would get me in trouble), there’s a clear application of norms here, and since they never actually define what clothing “keeping with their gender” is there are huge assumptions at play here. You’re expected to know what your gender is supposed to wear, and I suppose if you come from a country where it’s different or reversed you’re out of luck.
There have been similar cases in the past, including one in Massachusetts in 2000 that tackled the issue of whether Pat Doe, a biologically male student who identified as female, was allowed to wear clothing matching her gender identity to her high school. The court ruled in favor of Doe, and rejected the idea that the harassment she was receiving from her peers constituted a “disruption” to the learning environment and grounds for her to be forced to wear “male” clothing. Justice Linda E. Giles’s opinion on this facet of it the case was particularly succinct:
The attire worn by Justin doesn’t strike me as especially “male” or “female” – it’s just jeans and a shirt, though he did pad a bra to give the illusion of breasts and wear eyeliner and mascara, though in the case of the latter two many men who aren’t in drag wear it as well. A bit of personal bias is about to creep in here, but I personally prefer clothing that’s gender neutral. I’m also critical of clothing and products that are gendered when I don’t feel they have to be, like slippers and socks. Part of this is because I happen to have very wide feet and am not fond of high heels, but also it’s because I really don’t think it’s needed in some cases, and it just complicates things when all you want are things to keep your feet warm. Now, would he have been considered disruptive if he'd just worn it without trying to make a point? The policy is so unclear that it's hard to tell, though other things about this school make me think that they would have done it anyway.
I don’t think there’s much about what he did that could be considered inappropriate or disruptive, since trying to make a point is not the same thing as being disruptive, though they can overlap. It’s been my experience that school policy tends to use very ambiguous language, and it tends to result in issues like this. What do "disruptive" and "inappropriate" mean? To whom is it disruptive? Is it still inappropriate if only one person feels that it is? If they change their mind does it stay disruptive, or can it stop being inappropriate? As you can see it gets muddy, and this is the danger of using subjective language in policy, especially when it's normative language, and the administrators at Dunnellon High School have fallen right into it.
Justin says he’s not planning on pursuing the issue any further, but maybe this will make them rethink their policies and what they're really saying in them, since from the sound of it they don't know themselves.
Justin Reynolds, a gay male student in Florida, was removed from class after coming to school in a v-neck shirt, blue jeans, high heeled boots and jewelry. He did it so he could make a presentation about transgender rights. He checked with his teacher first, and though the teacher discouraged him they did not explicitly tell him not to do it. Later in the day was removed from the school due to a dress code policy that states that student’s clothing should be "keeping with their gender", and that a student can be removed if their clothing is "inappropriate" and "disrupts the school process".
Besides issues about whether under that logic girls shouldn’t be allowed to wear typically “male” clothing (and I can tell right away that would get me in trouble), there’s a clear application of norms here, and since they never actually define what clothing “keeping with their gender” is there are huge assumptions at play here. You’re expected to know what your gender is supposed to wear, and I suppose if you come from a country where it’s different or reversed you’re out of luck.
There have been similar cases in the past, including one in Massachusetts in 2000 that tackled the issue of whether Pat Doe, a biologically male student who identified as female, was allowed to wear clothing matching her gender identity to her high school. The court ruled in favor of Doe, and rejected the idea that the harassment she was receiving from her peers constituted a “disruption” to the learning environment and grounds for her to be forced to wear “male” clothing. Justice Linda E. Giles’s opinion on this facet of it the case was particularly succinct:
"To rule in [the school's] favor in this regard, however, would grant those contentious students a 'heckler's veto’… This court trusts that exposing children to diversity at an early age serves the important social goals of increasing their ability to tolerate such differences and teaching them respect for everyone's unique personal experience in that 'Brave New World' out there."Of course, that’s Massachusetts, and this case clearly isn’t identical. However, it does raise some interesting points about whether what Justin did should be considered educational as well, since he was doing it for the express purpose of giving a presentation. And is this issue really about what he wore, or is it about whether people respect each other enough to not care what another person wears? There’s an interesting cause-and-effect relationship here, and several of the students interviewed for that particular article didn’t seem to think he was disruptive, if anything it seems that it was the staff who had a problem with it.
The attire worn by Justin doesn’t strike me as especially “male” or “female” – it’s just jeans and a shirt, though he did pad a bra to give the illusion of breasts and wear eyeliner and mascara, though in the case of the latter two many men who aren’t in drag wear it as well. A bit of personal bias is about to creep in here, but I personally prefer clothing that’s gender neutral. I’m also critical of clothing and products that are gendered when I don’t feel they have to be, like slippers and socks. Part of this is because I happen to have very wide feet and am not fond of high heels, but also it’s because I really don’t think it’s needed in some cases, and it just complicates things when all you want are things to keep your feet warm. Now, would he have been considered disruptive if he'd just worn it without trying to make a point? The policy is so unclear that it's hard to tell, though other things about this school make me think that they would have done it anyway.
I don’t think there’s much about what he did that could be considered inappropriate or disruptive, since trying to make a point is not the same thing as being disruptive, though they can overlap. It’s been my experience that school policy tends to use very ambiguous language, and it tends to result in issues like this. What do "disruptive" and "inappropriate" mean? To whom is it disruptive? Is it still inappropriate if only one person feels that it is? If they change their mind does it stay disruptive, or can it stop being inappropriate? As you can see it gets muddy, and this is the danger of using subjective language in policy, especially when it's normative language, and the administrators at Dunnellon High School have fallen right into it.
Justin says he’s not planning on pursuing the issue any further, but maybe this will make them rethink their policies and what they're really saying in them, since from the sound of it they don't know themselves.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Transsexual Rights, Social Order and Political Compromise
Recently in the news it came to light that the Human Rights Campaign has adopted a policy on the inclusion of trans-inclusive protections in the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), and have said that they will not support the Act if it does not include trans protection. This is a reversal of a 2007 decision to support the Act without trans protection, and the backlash over the original decision was immense, leading to the resignation of several prominent members of the HRC and intense criticism from the LGBT community.
The HRC’s official statement on the matter is that the 2007 decision was a “one time exception” made because of the political climate of the time and the belief that ENDA would pass with sexual orientation defined and the trans protections left out. Though they have been lauded for this new development and the fact that they've rescinded their original policy, the memory of their 2007 stance is still fresh in the minds of many, and is symptomatic of a major rift in the LGBT community between the LGB and the T.
Within every social movement and political movement there are lines drawn and loyalties defined, and inevitably someone is left out or seen as expendable. In this case the transgender communities felt betrayed by the HRC’s refusal to push for inclusion in ENDA, and as in this case very often the ones who are left out are also the most vulnerable. This was nearly the case in the Women’s Rights Movement and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, and lesbians almost found themselves thrown under the bus for the sake of political advancement, though it was thankfully averted at the last moment, and perhaps because of that the Amendment died in the water. And now some gays have similarly turned on the trans community when passage of ENDA is so close, but it doesn't have to be that way.
A way of understanding this phenomenon can be found in the social order theory, which states that certain groups move upwards as they gain more prominence and acceptance within society. I grew up near a town that was a perfect example of this theory in action: The top of the hill was the most desirable place to live, and through the decades the ethnic makeup the area changed from white Anglo-Saxon Protestant to Catholic and Irish and later people of color, first wealthy African Americans and then Asians. At the moment the people below the hill are mainly Hispanic and Caribbean, though some of them have begun to advance up the hill. Within that town we see a snapshot of American culture and cultural acceptance, with those at the top of the hill being “true” Americans while those below are still struggling to assert their place within our society.
The state of the LGBT community can similarly be seen as tiered. At the top are “regular” gays and lesbians, people who can “pass” for straight and are seen as culturally acceptable by Americans who don’t mind a gay person as long as they “act straight” (note the quotation marks in the last sentence and throughout this article). This is the type most commonly seen in the media and the least likely to arouse extreme hatred. Following these are the ones seen as flamboyant or behave outside their expected gender role, and in this level the possibility of retaliation is much higher, and jokes and stereotypes about this group are more widely accepted. Following them are bisexuals, and besides facing persecution within the LGBT community, many people still doubt the existence of true bisexuality and not just “confusion” or “indecisiveness”. This is also expressed in media, which has a continuing reluctance to accept that some people are attracted to both men and women and are under no obligation to "choose" a "side".
We then get to the T, and even below them are the Is, the Intersexuals. While it can be said that most people have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of transsexuality the same cannot be said of Intersexuals, who sometimes find themselves subjected to persecution by transsexuals. No one is talking about intersexual rights at the moment in any national venue, so instead it's the transsexuals who most often find themselves left out and discarded for the sake of “advancing the cause” and securing rights of the “majority”.
Perhaps in the case of transsexuals (and by extension, intersexuals) a certain amount of this can be attributed to just how deeply rooted the concept of a binary male/female gender system is, so by extension those who cross gender lines are seen as a threat by people who might accept gay men and women as long as they act like men and women respectively. Mainly, though, this can be seen as another manifestation of the social order, and the desire for one group to advance itself even if that means sacrificing some of its allies.
This is in no way meant to excuse that behavior, as I said the most unjust part of this is that those who are the most vulnerable are the ones left behind, but it is simply in the nature of our current political system for the fringes to be discarded. In presidential elections both parties will attempt to distance themselves from the far right and far left once they clinch the nomination in an attempt to reach for the all-important center and the majority in the national election. Any group that enters the national stage will eventually do this, but in cases such as this the abandonment of the vulnerable should rightly be thought as sickening and threatening to the very purpose of the group itself, which is to ensure protection for all people regardless of any personal qualities or identity. What the HRC did in 2007 was a betrayal, plain and simple, and though they are now making a valiant attempt to rectify it the memory won't fade any time soon, and the HRC's reputation will remain low within the LGBT community until they show that they will not do this again.
I end with an applicable and well-known quote from Benjamin Franklin:
The HRC’s official statement on the matter is that the 2007 decision was a “one time exception” made because of the political climate of the time and the belief that ENDA would pass with sexual orientation defined and the trans protections left out. Though they have been lauded for this new development and the fact that they've rescinded their original policy, the memory of their 2007 stance is still fresh in the minds of many, and is symptomatic of a major rift in the LGBT community between the LGB and the T.
Within every social movement and political movement there are lines drawn and loyalties defined, and inevitably someone is left out or seen as expendable. In this case the transgender communities felt betrayed by the HRC’s refusal to push for inclusion in ENDA, and as in this case very often the ones who are left out are also the most vulnerable. This was nearly the case in the Women’s Rights Movement and the push for the Equal Rights Amendment, and lesbians almost found themselves thrown under the bus for the sake of political advancement, though it was thankfully averted at the last moment, and perhaps because of that the Amendment died in the water. And now some gays have similarly turned on the trans community when passage of ENDA is so close, but it doesn't have to be that way.
A way of understanding this phenomenon can be found in the social order theory, which states that certain groups move upwards as they gain more prominence and acceptance within society. I grew up near a town that was a perfect example of this theory in action: The top of the hill was the most desirable place to live, and through the decades the ethnic makeup the area changed from white Anglo-Saxon Protestant to Catholic and Irish and later people of color, first wealthy African Americans and then Asians. At the moment the people below the hill are mainly Hispanic and Caribbean, though some of them have begun to advance up the hill. Within that town we see a snapshot of American culture and cultural acceptance, with those at the top of the hill being “true” Americans while those below are still struggling to assert their place within our society.
The state of the LGBT community can similarly be seen as tiered. At the top are “regular” gays and lesbians, people who can “pass” for straight and are seen as culturally acceptable by Americans who don’t mind a gay person as long as they “act straight” (note the quotation marks in the last sentence and throughout this article). This is the type most commonly seen in the media and the least likely to arouse extreme hatred. Following these are the ones seen as flamboyant or behave outside their expected gender role, and in this level the possibility of retaliation is much higher, and jokes and stereotypes about this group are more widely accepted. Following them are bisexuals, and besides facing persecution within the LGBT community, many people still doubt the existence of true bisexuality and not just “confusion” or “indecisiveness”. This is also expressed in media, which has a continuing reluctance to accept that some people are attracted to both men and women and are under no obligation to "choose" a "side".
We then get to the T, and even below them are the Is, the Intersexuals. While it can be said that most people have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of transsexuality the same cannot be said of Intersexuals, who sometimes find themselves subjected to persecution by transsexuals. No one is talking about intersexual rights at the moment in any national venue, so instead it's the transsexuals who most often find themselves left out and discarded for the sake of “advancing the cause” and securing rights of the “majority”.
Perhaps in the case of transsexuals (and by extension, intersexuals) a certain amount of this can be attributed to just how deeply rooted the concept of a binary male/female gender system is, so by extension those who cross gender lines are seen as a threat by people who might accept gay men and women as long as they act like men and women respectively. Mainly, though, this can be seen as another manifestation of the social order, and the desire for one group to advance itself even if that means sacrificing some of its allies.
This is in no way meant to excuse that behavior, as I said the most unjust part of this is that those who are the most vulnerable are the ones left behind, but it is simply in the nature of our current political system for the fringes to be discarded. In presidential elections both parties will attempt to distance themselves from the far right and far left once they clinch the nomination in an attempt to reach for the all-important center and the majority in the national election. Any group that enters the national stage will eventually do this, but in cases such as this the abandonment of the vulnerable should rightly be thought as sickening and threatening to the very purpose of the group itself, which is to ensure protection for all people regardless of any personal qualities or identity. What the HRC did in 2007 was a betrayal, plain and simple, and though they are now making a valiant attempt to rectify it the memory won't fade any time soon, and the HRC's reputation will remain low within the LGBT community until they show that they will not do this again.
I end with an applicable and well-known quote from Benjamin Franklin:
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Saturday, March 21, 2009
A step forward for International Gay Rights
It appears that the U.S. is finally starting to catch up with the rest of the Western world on human rights and LGBT people. President Obama has said that the U.S. is going to sign onto a U.N. Gay Rights Declaration, stating that sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under international human rights protections. This act also calls for the universal repeal of laws criminalizing homosexuality and other so-called “Sodomy Laws” that allow for the prosecutions and murders of gays, lesbians and transgender people around the world.
It should be noted that earlier the Bush Administration did not sign onto this declaration under the justification of “technical legal grounds concerning federal and state jurisdiction over gay rights.” Excuse me while I roll my eyes at that and the suggestion that the states should be allowed to decide if they can execute me for being gay.
Over 60 other countries signed on to this declaration at the time it was proposed, and the ones who haven’t are places like Egypt, The Vatican, Uganda and other countries I won’t be visiting anytime soon. There are also some people using the old “Slippery Slope” argument to justify not signing it, but that’s an issue for another day.
It should be noted that earlier the Bush Administration did not sign onto this declaration under the justification of “technical legal grounds concerning federal and state jurisdiction over gay rights.” Excuse me while I roll my eyes at that and the suggestion that the states should be allowed to decide if they can execute me for being gay.
Over 60 other countries signed on to this declaration at the time it was proposed, and the ones who haven’t are places like Egypt, The Vatican, Uganda and other countries I won’t be visiting anytime soon. There are also some people using the old “Slippery Slope” argument to justify not signing it, but that’s an issue for another day.
Gender Identity, Intersexuality and Sports
There was a story in The Advocate yesterday about the controversy surrounding Sarah Gronert, a tennis player who was born with both male and female genitalia (also known as being born intersexed). This semester I’ve been in a college course about the Philosophy of Race and Gender, and one subject we’ve looked at is the way intersexed people are treated in our society. Gronert is facing controversy because some people are claiming that she’s not a “real” woman because of her physical strength, and that shouldn’t be allowed to play against other women as a result. To me this is a perfect example of the way our society treats intersexed people and the issues they face in our society.
Among the people who fall under the ever-growing umbrella term of LGBTQI, intersexed people get the least attention and have the least known about them by the general public. Historically intersexed people have often had to pick a gender role and are not allowed to express their identity for fear of retaliation. There have been cases of intersexed people being put to death if they refuse to conform, and it's an accepted practice for an intersexed baby to undergo surgery to "correct" their genitalia before they are old enough to give consent, and it's claimed that this is done to insure their quality of life. But despite the fact that Gronert has undergone surgery to become more female she's being treated with hostility, and as this story shows, some people are going to so far as to claim that she’s “really” a man despite legally identifying as a woman and living as a woman.
Do other people have the right to define who you are? This has been a fundamental question posed in my class and in this story, and I cannot in good conscience say that other people do have that right. From a sociological standpoint the forcing of intersexed people to choose a gender identity is a way to reinforce gender norms, since by their very nature intersexed people call our strict male/female gender dichotomy into question. In this case the idea that she’s a “threat” to the convention is made clear by the reactions of other people to her, but whether or not she does have a physical advantage because of her body structure I think is irrelevant compared to the way she’s being treated and how people are trying to define her identity for her.
I’ve posed the question of whether it really would be so bad to allow intersexed people to live openly and express their identity, but the recent elections have shown that we still have a long way to go when it comes to just tackling male/female gender differences, issues surrounding homosexuality, and the treatment of transgendered people, so unfortunately it appears that any sort of intersexed movement that might tackle issues such as this will have to wait for a time when they can make their voices heard.
Among the people who fall under the ever-growing umbrella term of LGBTQI, intersexed people get the least attention and have the least known about them by the general public. Historically intersexed people have often had to pick a gender role and are not allowed to express their identity for fear of retaliation. There have been cases of intersexed people being put to death if they refuse to conform, and it's an accepted practice for an intersexed baby to undergo surgery to "correct" their genitalia before they are old enough to give consent, and it's claimed that this is done to insure their quality of life. But despite the fact that Gronert has undergone surgery to become more female she's being treated with hostility, and as this story shows, some people are going to so far as to claim that she’s “really” a man despite legally identifying as a woman and living as a woman.
Do other people have the right to define who you are? This has been a fundamental question posed in my class and in this story, and I cannot in good conscience say that other people do have that right. From a sociological standpoint the forcing of intersexed people to choose a gender identity is a way to reinforce gender norms, since by their very nature intersexed people call our strict male/female gender dichotomy into question. In this case the idea that she’s a “threat” to the convention is made clear by the reactions of other people to her, but whether or not she does have a physical advantage because of her body structure I think is irrelevant compared to the way she’s being treated and how people are trying to define her identity for her.
I’ve posed the question of whether it really would be so bad to allow intersexed people to live openly and express their identity, but the recent elections have shown that we still have a long way to go when it comes to just tackling male/female gender differences, issues surrounding homosexuality, and the treatment of transgendered people, so unfortunately it appears that any sort of intersexed movement that might tackle issues such as this will have to wait for a time when they can make their voices heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
