Something Pleasant This Way Comes

And now, for a bit of positivity. Which is rare for me when blogging, because there's so very much crap on this earth that has me reaching for the handgun I won't allow myself to carry. Y'all have no idea how often my right hand spends clenching and unclenching just over my right hip/thigh, where the holster would sit. No freaking idea.

But the other day, I was zipping along on my way to work, when I heard an NPR story that nearly made me pull over to applaud better. For some reason, I can't find the actual radio story, but here's the Associated Press version.

NEW YORK (AP) — Advertisements preaching religious tolerance and an end to bigotry are going up in Manhattan subway stations.

A court decision forced the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to accept ads implying that enemies of Israel are "savages" and urging subway riders to "support the civilized man" and "Defeat Jihad."

Now the MTA has sold additional space to groups that disagree with the message of those ads.

Ads by a rabbis' group were to go up Monday. They proclaim: "Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors."

The Christian group Sojourners is paying for ads, also going up Monday, that say: "Love your Muslim neighbors."

Critics say the anti-jihad ads equate all Muslims or Palestinians with savages. But ad sponsor Pamela Geller has insisted the term applies only to people who support violence against Israel.

Whooo! Now that's what I'm freaking talking about! That's how religion is supposed to work, damnit. A faith system is supposed to be about caring for your fellow man, supporting those in need, working for the betterment of mankind regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, etc,. That's the freaking point. No one gets left out in the cold.

I get so worn out reading about religion as an excuse for bigotry. I read stories every day about religion being used as an excuse to ignore women's rights; how religious leaders use spiritual threats and bullying to force their congregations into line politically.

Religion should not be an argument for anything but religion. Faith should not be a temporal weapon, wielded to force victory for your "side." And if only by saying "it's God's will" can you support your stance, then keep your stance away from my politicians. Because I have enough trouble knowing some of them are bigots without watching spiritual leaders climb up on the stump with them.

It's nice to see that some spiritual leaders actually understand what "spiritual leadership" means. So for you, awesome rabbis and Christian activists, here's 20 or so seconds of celebratory Tiny Dance:

You've freaking earned it. Keep up the good work!

Handbasket Riders On Rollercoaster Lifts

Today, there isn't anything pissing me off, for a wonder. Not that there aren't things happening that would normally piss me off. I'm simply too tired to give a fart. 

For those that don't know me personally, I'm a college student. This semester, I'm also a part time lab assistant. I'm a professional journalist working part time, a full time husband, and a volunteer board member for a local BDSM group. I get four to five hours of sleep a night, the homework is backing up, the housework is glaring at me like a hall monitor that's caught you without a pass, and we just finally got our fuzzy child home a month after moving into the new apartment. She's an old little girl, and takes a bit of caring for.

My sister-in-law is currently in legal proceedings that I will not discuss, beyond saying that she's in no trouble and I have to drive up to the Oklahoma panhandle at least once a month. This month, it'll be twice due to the comedy of errors.

As recently noted, I've lost one of my anchors in life. I'm switching degree tracks after I finish my associates this semester. My husband and I are adjusting to living on completely our own for the first time in our relationship, and while it's wonderful it is an adjustment.

What? A point? Right, I had one somewhere.

I have no clue what I'm doing anymore. I write to write because writing helps me think. I write erotic work to keep the creativity flowing, I write near dadaist fiction filled with non-sequiturs because that's how my mind works. I write news because I'm paid to. 

I haven't painted anything in over a year, haven't composed anything in two. I haven't been out in a dress in…dang, two, almost three years. That last is going to be rectified on Hallowe'en, but still. 

My degree is nearly useless in my field, and my field is changing so much I have to go get a different degree because I no longer recognize my first love. I don't want to be in this anymore, but the English track I'll be switching to feels…well, like change. I've been working towards this for three years, and at the end of this semester, not so much anymore.

I'm so tired of being tired. I'm tired of fighting all you fuckers that have stories because you're afraid I'm out to get you. I'm grateful to those who work with me, but more often than not news sources run screaming from the mere suggestion of an interview.

I'm tired of homework, tired of class work, tired of spending hours and hours of my week listening and taking notes, only to panic and fight to get everything in on deadline and keep my grades up. I love my professors, don't get me wrong, but it's been a while since I've taken a day just to have a day, talked to a professor for the joy of talking, without a need for information or one eye on the clock. 

For those that know me really well, let me reassure you: no this is not a lead-in to a hemp fandango, or anything similar. I got over that years ago, and I'd have led with that if it was the problem. 

No, I look forward and I see a future there. I see my husband, and any boyfriends we may have, and babies, and publishing at least a little of my work, and all my zany family (both chosen and blood) hanging out as best they can. 

I just haven't the foggiest idea how to get there anymore. But damn it if i'm not going to keep grinding on. 

Because my point here is this: I may not know where I'm going or how I'm going to get there. I may be headed down in a hand-basket at warp 6. But I can't stop moving. I'm exhausted, and feel like beaten bird crap, and my mind is filled with mothballs, but I'm still going.

I'm damn well not going to stop. Ever. Sleep when you're dead, and maybe not even then. So for anyone out there that's looking at me and going, "slow down. You're so tired, you need a break, you need to take care of yourself."

Nope, slowing down is never going to happen.

I may be tired, but I'm still going. Being tired just means I have to watch more carefully that I don't hit the guard rails on life's highway.

I've taken breaks, and nearly gone mad. For me, it's better to run in the dark and pray I get somewhere good than wait for the dawn, and try to make up lost time.

My body is a rental. I've got maybe 60-80 years in it, and then it's repossessed. I'm going to get as much mileage out of it as possible. I've maintain it as I go the best I can, but if it can't keep up, that's a design flaw. And since the only time I'll get to take  that up with the manufacturer is after the repossession, I'm not overly worried about it.

I'm tired. I'm exhausted. I'm not Superman. I have no idea where I'm going, but I'm making marvelous time getting there.

And I'm not stopping, slowing down, deviating, or flinching. I'll catch a nap if I have to and come back roaring. 

So for everyone in my life: this acceleration? The way I've been moving faster and faster, getting more and more exhausted? That's the ramp on the rollercoaster. We're going to go a hell of a lot faster before we're done. Try and keep up. 

In Childhood Dreamings Unimagined

You know that feeling you have as a small child? That once you grow up, the world will make sense. The you will find a rhyme and reason, a pattern to things. That whatever your childhood dumps on you, it'll be ok someday, because someday you'll be an adult. Gods, I hate that feeling now.

Why? Because every time I turn around, I realize a) I still have a bit of it, and b) the cosmos has an infinite number of way to beat me over the head with it. We're going to talk about my mother today, Herr Dr. Internets. I'll just stretch out on this virtual couch, shall I?

My mother is, as all persons are, complex. I can't make unqualified statements about her, except that I love her. She's a sometime saint and frequent bigot; a fundamentalist doomsday Roman Catholic, and a mother raising her children to survive an ongoing world; she's a true genius, but also a Renaissance woman who prefers the methods of pre-Industrial America.

This woman has both pulled me through and put me through more hell than I can describe in one place comfortably. On the one hand, when I pulled crazy bullshit as a teen, she was standing there to keep me from losing everything. On the other hand, she drove me back into the closet three times and raised me knowing I was gay but still punishing any behavior that smacked of gender nonconformity.

For the good she's done, I've spent years as an apologist for the "quirks" she has. I tell stories on my mom a lot and though I try to balance them between accomplishments and quirks, the end result is often "geez, dude, your mom is nuckin' futs."

So I explain. I clarify her point of view. I clarify the point of view of the church she belongs to. I have spent more time in theological debate over why my mother thinks the way she does than I have actually talking to my mother. And that's over a period of five years. Turns out, this was a huge mistake.

Yesterday I sat down with my mom to finish a discussion we'd started over the phone. Quick back story: she'd said, through text, she wanted me to come back to the church. I called her and explained what's going on with the Catholic church right now. Since mom was in the middle of dinner, we decided to postpone since I was visiting my grandmother (who lives with my parents) and we could have the talk in person. Which brings us to yesterday.

Coffee was made and poured, I hunted down an ashtray, and we began. I'm a very humanist thinker, given to logical trains of thought and clarity of wording. If you say it to me in a debate, damn well know that what you say and how you say it aren't the same thing to me. If you mean one thing, but say something that doesn't quite mean what you intended I will call you on it.

My mother is the exact opposite style of debate. She interrupts a lot to restate her positions, or to demand clarification. My mother is, to date, the only person on the planet that causes me to consistently want to scream "what do you mean, what do I mean?" as a matter of course. She is also the only person I know who can inject enough ambiguity into a statement to allow her to completely change its meaning anywhere from 2 minutes to 10 years later...and leave you wondering if that's what she meant all along.

Long story short, it's a headache talking about anything more complex than the weather, especially if it's something we both have strong views about.

Consequently, the discussion lasted four hours. I won't detail all the arguments and counterarguments made. Just know it would have gone on longer, but for one thing: we hit an ideological impasse.

After hearing the dozens of arguments and tricks of rhetoric and sophistry that allow her to make sweeping statements and then argue the opposite on a detail level without opposing said sweeping statement, I finally made the argument I've wanted to make for years.

"But Mom, 'love the sinner, hate the sin' hurts people. It's dehumanizing, it assumes an entire group of people will be willing to give up a major part of the pursuit of happiness to satisfy an abstract being for the promise of getting to be with that being! It assumes that you are willing to hurt yourself in the name of a being, and the reward is spending eternity in that being's presence!"

Well, she nods and starts to congratulate me for getting it, and explain why it's so. I interrupted her.

"But mom, can't you see that's a horrific argument? It only works because you use God to prop it up!"

Her response?

"Well, of course I can see that if God wasn't part of the equation, it would be a rotten argument. But He is part of the equation, so this is how it has to be."

Yes. My mother holds the same ideological fervor that powers fanatics. For her, the beliefs, the dogma, are simply extensions of faith and following them is an act of faith. There is no question in her mind that though it would be horrible to inflict this on someone without a God to back her up, her God does back her up. And because God says so, the horror simply disappears and is no longer part of the equation.

I am...sickened beyond any means to describe. I've defended her point of view for years, to my shame, without realizing how perfectly fundamental it was. Simply saying "it's God's will" makes a horror not only acceptable, but righteous.

No more. I will never willingly have this conversation with my mother again. I will neither broach it to her, nor bring up her point of view except tangentially to anyone else. I will not defend her point of view, though I will defend her right to hold it. And I will not even mention, after this point, that she holds these views excepting that it is necessary to explain the foundations of my own.

What has this to do with childish thinking? Well, I had always thought that when I grew up and learned more, I'd be able to have an intelligent dialogue with my mother that didn't end with "Because I said so" or "Because God." And come to find out, that's her entire operating principle. For everything. Ever.

Godsdamnit, I'm tired of being hit over the head with childhood naivete.

Confuse the Sinner

Every time I turn around these last couple of days, I'm running into something I need to write about. Gods, I'm seriously considering hiding under my sofa for a few days to catch a break from being pissed. Unfortunately, I have dust bunnies. And that would annoy me.

Today's anger comes in the form of a blog an old family friend posted in which he stated:

[T]o say that one's sexual orientation -- a characteristic that connotes action, in other words, one must choose to act upon one's sexual preference-- is the same in kind as the color of one's skin -- a thing that is unalterable by the act of the will -- cheapens the human understanding of sexuality and ethnicity.  

This is, so far, a fair argument. There really isn't a good comparison between sexual orientation and race beyond the fact that both are discriminated against. I'm gay, but I can butch up (somewhat) and no one will know. My skin does not declare me a part of a minority, nor am I so declared by any outward, immutable sign. 

Unfortunately, this argument is made in support of this one:

This line is meant to imply that the term "non-traditional family" should include gay couples. As one who comes from a "non-traditional family" -- black step-father and white mother -- I resent this comparison.  This clip equates race with sexual orientation.

The essential problem here is the confusion of what's actually being argued. In fact, the whole post reads like this. Towards the beginning, Foshee states that he finds several issues with the show that prompted his blog post, including women's rights concerns and the dehumanization of children. But he also states that, for brevity and clarity, he will confine his argument to the "race issue."

What follows is 282 words about how offended Foshee is at what he believes is an implication that gay couples inclusion under the heading "non-traditional family" equates sexual orientation with race. 

I am now, officially confused. Also slightly hurt in my turn, but mostly confused. 

First of all, let's break down the argument from the first premise: that inclusion of LGBT (specifically gay) couples under the heading of "non-traditional family" somehow makes a connection between the issues faced by gay couples and the issues faced by interracial couples, single parents, grandparents caretakers, adoptive parents, foster parents…

Hmm? Oh, no, he was only speaking of interracial couples. As he himself states, he is the child of a caucasian woman while his stepfather is African American. Problem is, he's using a very narrow definition of "non-traditional" to form this opinion. 

So, Merriam-Webster defines a tradition as "an inherited, established or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom.)"

H-uh. Ok. So, based on roughly 225 years of established "American" social custom, with a couple hundred years more of British social custom behind that, a traditional family consists of: a strong male head of house who earns the sole income for the family; a female companion that runs and governs the house in the male's absence, does not work outside the home, and should defer to her spouse; between one and 15 children; and any parents or siblings of either the male or female leaders of the house who may be invalid, aged, or single. The final caveat is that, with the exception of any children born out of wedlock, all members of the family should have roughly the same skin color.

On the other hand, good 'ol Merriam defines the prefix "non-" to mean "not, other than, reverse of, absence of <nontoxic> <nonlinear>."

So, a "non-traditional" family in the strictest definition would be any family that doesn't have the exact structure, or some slight variation of the structure, that is described above.

Frankly, I'd have to say that covers a lot of ground. There aren't a lot of families that fit that definition. It should be noted that, culturally, the definition has be flexed a bit to include families with working mothers and female heads of house as long as there is a heterosexual racially homogenous couple as the center of the household. But even with that expansion, there's way too many family structures to try and make any definitive statements about the category as a whole. 

So to say that two selections within that category are similar beyond their inclusion in that category because they are included in that category is nonsense. The only similarity that can be drawn from their simultaneous inclusion is that they are both non-traditional family structures. And definitively speaking, that is a correct statement.

Quick summation: there is no inherent comparison implied or made by the inclusion of gay couples in the "non-traditional" family group. Further, it is a matter of definition that such couples are inherently a part of that group.

Still with me then? Excellent. Let's take this to the next step. 

The basic argument of "race ≠ sexual orientation" is a sweet bit of rhetorical real estate. There isn't a good counterargument, the statement is true on a 1:1 value, and there's a lot of charged dialogue that can be generated from it. The arguments for it even make themselves, as evinced above.

Unfortunately, Foshee decides to take a flying leap to another topic entirely to make this simple point. 

Sexuality must be actualized by the will, and because of this, is one of the most humanized actions we are capable of doing.  In other animals, it is simply instinct.  Whether or not one is born with homosexual tendencies does not take from him the ability to choose to act upon his sexuality.  He can choose to reject it, accept it, flaunt it, suppress it... etc.  Choice defines this aspect of our lives.  I should know; I'm choosing to live a celibate life as a priest.

Ok. This is an old, old argument. Ever heard the old saw "love the sinner, hate the sin"? This is the grown up non-Aesop-y version of that. What we've got here is the acknowledgement that being gay may or may not (despite lots of evidence for 'not') be a choice. 

"But even if it isn't, having gay sex or relationships certainly is! So there! It is a choice to 'be' gay, because you can choose not to express it! HA!" says inner straw man.

For those that can't see me, I'm doing a Spock eyebrow right now at my inner straw man.

This is actually a fabulous argument, rhetorically speaking. Some people are going to throw things at me for this, but it's fabulous because, definitively speaking, it is in fact true. Any action requiring conscious deliberation and consent by the actor before action can occur is made by choice. 

But a person born of a certain ethnicity does not have the ability to choose anything about his race.  He simply is black, white, latino, asian... etc.  Sure, you can try to change things -- the way you dress, how you act, even cosmetic changes.  But you can't act upon your ethnicity.

I went on with the quote before completing this argument because it needs context to be clear. Again, I'm not entirely sure why the comparison is being drawn between these two very different groups based on an umbrella term that encompasses both, but we'll go on anyway.

While it is true that there is no element of choice in racial heritage, and it is true that any action taken is definitively a choice on some level, this is where the "choice of action" argument hits a snag.

This would be it. I give you the 2005 National School Climate Survey. 

Listen to how this sounds for a moment: "you're a good and wonderful person. But unless you find someone that you aren't attracted to that you can live with, you must spend your life alone and celibate, because any action you take that follows your inclinations is inherently sinful."

At any point during that, did you stop hearing "don't sin" and start hearing "you're broken, and must die alone if you want to avoid the wrath of God"?

I did. And to paraphrase Foshee: I should know; I'm a gay kid raised Catholic, who had to learn to support that argument in apologetics classes. 

And the best bit is, that's a summary. Since the statement is only very rarely made in total, it never sounds that bad to the person saying it. And on the off chance that a kid puts all the pieces together and then has the guts to ask if that is that actual total statement? 

Cue an hour long explanation of why God loves us enough to give us what is essentially a near free ticket to heaven, as long as we spend life without intimate companionship. And intimate can definitely mean relationship here. Sure it's possible that two gay guys might live together, love each other, and never have sex. But there's this fun little clause known as "the avoidance of near temptation." Basically, it means "don't get in situation that might tempt you to sin." 

Which in turn means the "celibate companion" option is either never brought up, or decried if it is.

What all this boils down to is that there is no mercy shown by the "choice of action" argument. It's a way of intentionally or unintentionally cloaking the same argument of "gays are TEH EVULZ" in ways that make it sound somewhat palatable at first glance.

By way of my own out-of context comparison though, I feel the need to make a point of my own as a conclusion to this mess. Foshee says in his  closing line:

Sure, you can try to change things -- the way you dress, how you act, even cosmetic changes.  But you can't act upon your ethnicity.

Fair warning: what follows is a nasty, ugly argument made for the purposes of rhetorical comparison, and only for those purposes. 

Technically speaking, and by the very definition Foshee uses to allow for gay people to be human while still demonizing any homosexual action taken, yes you can. After all, if there is a "choice of action" in acting homosexual, there is an equal "choice of action" in acting black or Latino, or Chinese. 

No, the color of the skin can't be changed. Throughout history, however, there have been horrific attempts to "whitewash" cultures and languages. By the definition of "choice of action" as used by Foshee, all ethnic individuals that embrace their cultural heritage are "acting on the choice" to be who they are. The fact that it can't be hidden is immaterial. Any such individual could "choose" to abandon their heritage and culture, and attempt to be "as white as possible."  

End Comparison. You were warned.

But if I was to seriously suggest that the best way for any ethnic minority to avoid discrimination was to "whiten up"? I'd be lynched, and rightly so.

Now please…explain to me the difference between discrimination and hate based on the color of skin, and the "whitewash" solution — and discrimination and hate based on who one loves, and the "don't act gay" solution?

A Pageant Of Arrogance and Hate

Once upon a time, in the land of Naïvète, I believed trolls existed only in their purest form on the Intarwebz. Never, ever have I been so wrong. Nor have I ever been so frustrated at being wrong.

Lets get some background, shall we?

There is this group in Oklahoma (and a few other places, though I don’t know if the various groups are affiliated) called the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ. Every so often, you’ll be out driving in OKC and run across this fairly large group of African American guys in black fatigues and combat boots. Over this, they wear white surplices (clerical garb, ok?) and stoles of various colors. Also, funny hats. But hats are awesome, and should never be mocked, even if they make me go “huh?”

If there’s more than four of them, they’ll have a big sandwich board with a Star of David on it, and contact info and so on for their church and what they believe, etc,.

I don’t listen to them. For the most part, it’s a question of convenience. They set up by roadways and gas stations, and there’s really no good place to park and listen. Also, the places they can be found are places that I’m only likely to be while on my way to somewhere else in a hurry.

All this giving you a picture in your head? Good. Last fact, before we move on: there are no winners in this blog. The Israelite Church is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group of the Black Separatist variety. Immensely long story short (and made slightly inaccurate in the shortening) black separatists want segregation and/or all individuals of African descent to go back to Africa. Don’t ask why, I don’t know, nor do I particularly care to speculate. If I ever meet one, I’ll ask.

So, there is troll numbah one: a group preaching a return to racial segregation in the name of a god.

Now, I pull up for gas with my husband at a 7-11 and they’re out on the corner yelling into the wind (literally) and doing their thing. Got no clue what message they’re preaching, cause I can’t hear them, but there’s people honking, and taking pictures and video. Any spectacle in Oklahoma is a major win, even if it’s bigoted crap. Often, especially if it’s bigoted crap. So they’ve got an audience.

Enter troll numbah two in the form of a dumpy little woman. As I walk into the station to pay for my gas, I see this little fat lady waving her purse and shouting about Jesus. This being Oklahoma, people shouting about Jesus are not uncommon, and I ignored her as well.

By the time I get out of the station, this little lady is standing in front of the Israelite Church congregation, screaming at the top of her lungs to drown them out. Not even a coherent argument, but just over and over “He died for us all!”

I have never seen such a ludicrous display. Ever.

On the one hand, we have a group of individuals shrouding bigotry and separatism in the trappings of religion. I’ve noted before that spirituality is important to me; taking a gift of faith and perverting it to spread hate or fear is one of the few things on this earth that truly disgusts me.

But standing in front of them, on the other hand is a woman who is fairly clearly attempting to represent a faith system that is one of the most dominant in the world. And she is representing it by screaming at the top of her lungs, seeking to invalidate an argument simply by repeating one of her articles of faith.

For those not into theology, an article of faith is defined as an precept or belief that is believed not because it is supported by rational validation, but because one has faith that it is true.  In other words, this woman is trying to disprove their argument by repeatedly screaming a “fact” that is only true to her because she believes it is!

The worst bit? She won.

Now this isn’t the worst bit because I agree with black separatism; nor is it the worst because I dislike Christianity. This is the worst bit because she demonstrated the kind of intolerance that gives fuel to the fires of discrimination, bigotry and racism. Her victory made the Israelite Church’s point for them. And both more clearly and more sharply than any hours of preaching could ever have accomplished.

And, worst of the worst, it proved to watcher’s that there’s no need for a rational debate. There’s no need for accord or compromise. If you hold a majority belief, you can simply scream at a minority until they shut up and go away. Again, I do not condone their belief, but it was their gods-given right to stand on that corner and preach whatever they wanted short of incitement to violence. And this one woman shut them down by screaming to the point of near incoherence, repeating a belief.

Is this it? Is this how we solve debates in our country now? Mud–slinging and name calling, and screaming to drown out opposing views until the loudest voice stands alone?

Watching that display, I have never been so ashamed to call myself human, and even more to call myself American. Because I saw in that moment every stereotype that I’ve heard about our “great” nation encapsulated perfectly. I saw the bombastic voice, unheeding and uncaring to have it’s closed mind opened. I saw hate preached on a corner, for the sake of hate. I saw a crowd of people watching, laughing like maniacs and recording this for the value of entertainment, to show their friends and laugh at the idiots.

I saw a pageant in miniature of all the things the world must see in us. And I saw, to my shame, that they’ve all got more than a grain of truth.

All The News You Want To Hear

As I was driving into work today, I listened to NPR to get my daily dose of whatever horrors mankind can come up with, in sprightly tones and sound bites. Given that I live in America and it’s a an election year, the horrors of war and death were largely set aside to make room for the horrors of politics.

This is where the rant kicks off. I am rapidly losing all respect for professional American news media outlets. Yups, the journalist is biting the hand that feeds!

See, throughout the various chats with pundits, commentators, pollsters, and the like, no one mentioned any names but those of the candidates for the big parties. Yes, there are others, for those that wondered why I made that distinction. And there have been other candidates this whole time. Yet the only ones getting press have been the Republicans and Obama. 

Heck there’s an independent libertarian candidate right now. Ever heard of Gary Johnson? Unless you liked him already, probably not. As far as the world is concerned, the race is between the Republicans and Democrats courtesy of their flag bearers. 

Why? Cause the media says so, dangit. “That Johnson dude hasn’t got the chances of paper cup in a hurricane, so why bother covering him?”

And so no one learns he exists. 

The shift in the way news is reported has been happening for years. Thirty, even twenty years ago, news was delivered dispassionately by men and women whose sole job was to tell the friggin’ facts to people. There’s always been bias, depending on word choices and which stories made it to the air, but the facts were still fairly intelligible. 

Nowadays, that’s not so much the case. We have what’s called “advocacy journalism” which basically means “pick a side.” The facts are still the basis of news, but the structure and content of news is now determined by network or publisher views, with a goal of informing people of the facts, while also informing them of how the reporter or anchor feels about the facts. 

Don’t believe me? Go, right now, and find a story that both Fox and NBC covered. Compare and contrast, a là college Comp I. I friggin’ dare you.

Now, for fun, stop and think of this: Bill O’Reilly, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Grace, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert are viable news sources. Think on that for a second. Every person on that list hosts a show where the biases are out in the open. 

Tuning into their shows means you get something that looks and sounds like news, and often actually is news. And you don’t have to worry about being mislead, because they’re absolutely clear on the fact that they’re either strongly biased for their own side, or making fun of the other side. 

(Except maybe Colbert. Apparently, he falls victim to Poe’s Law fairly regularly.)

But what’s worse is that, while advocacy journalism can be handled by moderating your news sources (using several at a time to get a whole picture), there’s a strong shift back towards sensationalist news in response to the growing prevalence of non-professional “citizen journalism” through “new media.” Basically, the interwebs.

For anyone that hasn’t taken a mass comm class yet, sensationalism is the reporting style that flourished during the Hearst-Pulitzer publishing wars of the late nineteenth-early twentieth century. The whole point of sensationalism is to sell the product, be it a paper, web subscription, or XM radio station. It means that instead of reporting what is important, or reporting it with absolute factualism, viewers only get the news they’re willing to watch. And they get it in a way that overdramatizes it, making it more palatable to an entertainment driven culture. 

Why is this bad? Well, the bottom line here is that as the news shifts to become more and more yellow, the facts become less and less important. After all, to you do your best to be absolutely factual when you’re telling your friends or family a story, or about your day? 

Of course not. Because your goal is to rant, or entertain. Which is also, more and more, the point of the “news.”

So get out there and keep your ears to the ground. But just make sure you get a lot of different voices telling you the news, cause any one of them could be just telling you a bedtime story to sell advertising, instead of a news story to keep you informed.

Coming Down in Three Part Dissonance

If you know me, you know I'm difficult to offend. Sure I rant, and the stupidity of humans angers me, but I don't often take offense. My buttons are about a millimeter wide and protected behind a 5 inch shield of lead-like apathy. Just about nothing gets to me on a personal level. 

Anyone that called this as a lead up to "but this one thing…" may now have a lollipop. (Disclaimer: Lollipops not included. Readers must provide their own.)

Of all the things I thought might ever offend me, however, a math textbook would never have made the list. And yet, it happened just yesterday.

So I'm working along on statistics problems, when I come to a problem that asks me to match a set of histograms with a set of questions that were used to generate the data the histograms are based on. No numbers, just the shape of the 'grams and guesswork to go on. It's not a hard question, since two of the inquiries are binary. Two responses only, which are entered into the data set as 0 or 1.

The binary questions are as follows: "are you right or left handed?" and "are you male or female?"

Well, I know the proportions of right-left handedness in the general population, so that's a snap. But then comes the attached critical thinking exercise.

"Figure 5.18 shows histograms of the student responses, in scrambled order and without scale markings. Which histogram goes with each variable? Explain your reasoning. Would the 0–1 coding scheme work for someone who is ambidextrous (or transgendered)?" (COMAP 198. Emphasis added.)

I freely admit that I almost didn't catch this. I was buzzing along, saw the word ambidextrous, and was all prepared to say "nope, wouldn't work." Thankfully it was a critical thinking exercise, and I realized my mistake. And then I got to thinking about it, and became mightily offended.

The implication here, for anyone that missed it, is as follows: ambidexterity represents a third option in handedness, since by definition an ambidextrous person is neither left nor right handed. Following that train to it's inevitable wreck, a transgender person represents a third option because they are neither male nor female. 

What.

I actually didn't finish my freaking homework, I was so pissed. Since my math prof (who didn't choose the book) doesn't want, need, or deserve a manifesto-like tract about discriminatory questions in textbooks, I gave him a paragraph about why the question is flawed, and left it at that. But the fact that I would even see that question in my textbook is freaking insane. This is a godsdamned college textbook. Why am I seeing discriminatory questions in a freaking college textbook?

Now, most of you might know why this is wrong, but I'm going to spell it out as best I can anyway. This is one of those things that I'm going to have trouble explaining, not because it's a hard concept, mind, but because it's so bloody basic it catches me off guard when I have to explain it. So please bear with me.

A transgender individual is born one biological sex, but is actually the gender associated with the opposite biological sexual characteristics. (Simplified explanation is simple. Go read the documentation if you want details, ok?)

So, a woman is born with a male body, or a man is born with a female body. The key point here is: fuck biology. The mind of a transgender person isn't out of place, the body is. So a transwoman is a woman, full stop, end of sentence, no further freaking qualifiers. Just a woman. Same goes for transmen. That's a man, done, end of story. 

There is no third option. There is no in-between state that magically appears because some loser with a bias doesn't have enough brain cells to store anything but the Bible verses some lunatic uses to denounce what ever makes him hard.

I've heard about and read about discrimination against trans individuals based on their "real gender" (read: congenital biological sexual characteristics.) And that's horrific unto itself. I literally cannot comprehend the pain that it must incur to look in a mirror and see the wrong person staring back. These are individuals whose bodies are the wrong everything. Not just "I think I'll color my hair, cause the color isn't me" or "I think I'll get my teeth whitened and straightened" but the whole freaking enchilada. Nothing matches. 

And yet there are still people who will insist on mistreating trans individuals based on their congenital sex. Not all trans individuals get a perfect transition, if they can get one at all. So in some cases, an observer that's already primed to discriminate might see a congenital biological male or female standing in front of them instead of the woman  or man who is clearly standing there. 

But my textbook goes that one step further, beyond cruelty and into the realms of horror. It implies that because the gender is one, and the biology is another, the person is neither. 

Again: what.

What in the name of all the gods above and below gives anyone the right to decide a person is not a person?

Do we not remember slavery? The decision to call an entire chunk of our race sub-or-abhuman because of a skin color? How about pre-suffrage women's rights? You know, when women couldn't own anything and were treated as baby machines and free labor? Cause they were women?

What the hell is wrong with these degenerate, xenophobic, misbegotten trolls?

No-one gets to make those decisions! No-one gets to declare that a person is not a person, for whatever reason! Gods-damned ax-murderers get the basic respect of being treated as human beings, and we can't extend that courtesy to someone that has enough freaking problems without putting up with bullcrap from some bigoted worm turd?!

Taking deep breath now. Blood pressure too high already.

For anyone out there (though I doubt you'd read this if you were) who has decided that their opinion matters more than the mental, emotional and physical health of a human being: screw you. 

You don't get to decide that. You can have your shortsighted, close-minded, ignorant opinion. But don't you freaking dare take it out on transpeople. Your lack of functioning brain cells are not their problem.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Cited: 

(COMAP. For All Practical Purposes. 9. W. H. Freeman, 2011. 198. Print.)