LiftGate: QEDcon2013

Hello everyone.

So you know before we get going, some of this is meant to be tongue-in-cheeck, mainly because I wanted to make use of a pun. It’s also got little serious bits in it and partly it’s because I just got home from QED and I need a bit more of it in my life before I let it go for another year…

Also I haven’t been blogging much lately, I don’t know why. Haven’t been inspired, also busy with new job(s) and imminent moving house! I didn’t write a post about QEDcon 2012 because I was mega-stressed with thesis-writing at the time (nearly couldn’t attend because of it) but this year I shall follow from the 2011 posts:

I love QED

As does everyone I speak to who’s been. This was its third year and it certainly lived up to expectations based on the last two. I’d looked forward to it since I left in 2012; extremely tired on the Sunday evening, I slept through the whole train journey back to Euston. Cleverly, this year I booked the room for Sunday night too – to anyone who can afford a bit of Monday off and the extra expense, I highly recommend this!

Some of the organisers are good friends of mine (do listen to Skeptics with a K if you haven’t before; one of my favourite podcasts! Also check out the infrequent but giggle-inducing InKredulous) but even if they weren’t I’d still have to give them many hugs/hi-5s/no-contact congratulations (delete as preferred) because, together with all the volunteers, they do a truly amazing job. I think I’ll be joining their ranks next year!

Highlights

Rocking up on Friday evening for the mixer in the bar, coming back to a now familiar place and seeing lots of familiar faces (as well as plenty of new ones!) is brilliant. Some drinks, some chat, some hugs and a lot of excitement.

On Sunday we made a bit of a snap decision to listen to Natalie Haynes talk about similarities between Greek tragedies and soap operas, and the relevance of other classical authors such as Pliny, Juvenal and Virgil in modern life. Her explanation of why people saying quis custodiet ipsos custodes is quite hilarious was just perfect. Despite clearly being high on caffeine and sleep-deprived (which she acknowledged with comedic excellence), I hugely enjoyed her talk. With a Latin A level from school, I have missed classical literature and ancient history ever since and it was a lovely reminder.

Just before this, Carrie Poppy, all the way from the US of A, gave her talk on the value of anecdotes. I very much appreciated this. As an intactivist, a lot of the research I do in this area involves listening to people’s stories of how circumcision has had a negative impact on their lives. This is not valueless, quite the opposite. When an argument in defence of something often contains “but I’ve never heard anyone complain about it/I’m fine!”, exposing the truth that in fact a great deal of people have been harmed is very important indeed. I think a lot of skeptics could learn from this, and rein in the (often appropriate, admittedly) data or gtfo kind of attitude.

An excellent set from Chris Coltrane included a perfect bit on being bisexual and biphobia, which definitely resonated with a selection of us in the room! We shook his hand for that.

There were so many other things. I collected a promised hug from Colin, due to my having Tweeted a semi-regular plea for cheery thoughts when I was feeling sad one time… and having walked past him on the way to the station one day but not managing to stop and say hi in time!

ElevatorGate

For the unaware, here’s a quick bit of background on an incident you’ll need to know something about for the rest of this section to make sense.

There are other skeptical conferences. At one such event, a female speaker gave a talk that included some advice on being respectful to women, and after some time at the bar got into a lift (or an elevator, if you’re from the other side of the pond) to go to bed.

In said lift, a male delegate at the conference decided to ask her to his room for coffee. Possibly innocently, possibly with hopes of some kind of friendlier-than-that situation, who knows. After the event, said female skeptic (who is well-known to most skeptics) made a video for her website that was about an hour long, which included a short statement on this incident.

She asked him, and guys like him, not to do that kind of thing. If it’s late and you’re in a confined space alone with a woman, don’t proposition her (or say something that’s likely to be interpreted as such). It’s just a bad idea.

Fair point. Unfortunately this exploded into ridiculous discourse and all kinds of people jumped in with their views; why is she implying he might be a rapist and why doesn’t she shut up and die – together with deeper and deeper analyses of male privilege, misogyny and all sorts. Including a very misjudged and sexist comment from Richard Dawkins. The fall-out is still happening, somewhat absurdly.

Given this, just about every time a few of us got in the lift, someone would make a joke about “ElevatorGate”, as it’s now known. It was very funny.

We giggled. It was also nice when loads of us packed into the lift at one point and, to save space, partner and I took the opportunity to have a cuddle. After laughing about the close quarters, one girl did ask: “You do know each other, right?” – I think it’s great that people are coming out and asking that, rather than making assumptions or keeping quiet when they witness what might be an uncomfortable situation. Progress.

LiftGate

What wasn’t so funny was when I was chatting, wine in hand, with some other drunk folks after the Saturday night entertainment, trying to work out what strange game they were playing (it involved placing a wine bottle upright on the floor, using teamwork to avoid touching the floor with anything other than that bottle past a certain point).

When my flatmate said something like “Maz, be on our team, you’re light!” and picked me up briefly, a little way off the floor, to demonstrate this fact, we were amused.

However, when a random guy I had never met, who did not introduce himself or ask before going ahead with his copycat behaviour, proceeded to wrap his arms around the tops of my thighs and pick me quite high up off the ground with a grin on his face, which was pressed against my front – we did not laugh.

In fact, my partner told me afterwards that he’d felt like punching him at that point (not usually a violent person). In different circumstances, I might have let him.

Now, I’m not insinuating that this person was anything other than an inebriated reveler who saw something mildly amusing (he was not to know the previous lifter was well-known to me) and decided to join in the fun – I hope that’s the long and short of it.

However, at the risk of kicking off #liftgate, here is my advice – don’t do that. Don’t approach strangers and touch them somewhat inappropriately, even in a partying environment. My displeasure at this may have been enhanced by the fact I was wearing a loosely hanging dress I hadn’t worn before – and I don’t wear dresses often anyway.

But there it is. In the grand scheme, a small thing – I am not traumatised or accusing this person of deliberately treating me a bit like a bit of sports equipment free to be tried out in the shop, I expect he just wasn’t thinking.

That’s the point though; a lot of us are socially awkward, and it’s worth taking a second to think before you act (or speak). All of that is overridden by meeting loads of brilliant people this weekend, catching up with friends, learning some cool stuff and having a generally awesome holiday. Plus I got to use my pun-thing.

Edit: Following some commenting and Twittering, all is well – let this be an example of How Not To Be A Dick. We all make mistakes. Pointing things out, accepting our errors, apologising for them and being forgiven – it’s easy and it doesn’t have to turn into a giant flame war. Live and learn.

Links

I will try to update this over the coming week or two with links I find to other posts, picture albums and so on relating to this year’s event. Feel free to tweet them at me, that would be helpful!

The amazing intro video can be watched over and over again here!! The 2011 and 2012 videos are also available. Everyone gets Milton Mermikides‘ theme tune stuck in their head for a while!

Here’s Stevyn (with whom we had a lovely lunch discussing Qi curiosities and other things on Saturday) with his favourite bits. He mentions our protesters, and I’ll try to find more mention of them. You can also read more about his Skeptical Bobby talk!

You can even listen to Saturday’s Pod Delusion Live recording!

Robin Ince mused on his panel conflict, which I unfortunately missed, but I liked reading this anyway. Here’s a summary of that session by Violetta Crisis. Daphna Shezaf has also written about the conference, and the aforementioned panel.

Some of Robin’s rage was expertly captured by @gwendes – have a look here.

Pixie359 thinks about what more can be done in skepticism.

Alex Gabriel defends Atheism+ for The Heresy Club (I missed this session too).

Hayley has put her thoughts into words.

Eventifier keeps track of twitter traffic generated by events, pretty cool stuff. Over nine thousand tweets… >480 photos, 26 videos – from more than 1200 accounts, apparently!

See Liveskeptic for some storify (collections of tweets on a particular subject/talk).

Here’s a Flickr album from Richard Cooper and here’s an open Flickr group by Kevin Friery that anyone can upload their images to. Friday (including afternoon tweet-up), Saturday and Sunday photos by Rob McDermott, plus a lovely pan of the RDF hall. The Hampshire Skeptics page also has some great images.

My photos are here but I’ll try to put them on Picasa at some point.

Circumcision debate

UCLU ASHS 28/02/13

Antony Lempert (GP & Chair of the Secular Medical Forum)

vs.

Jonathan Arkush (Vice President, Board of Deputies of British Jews)

Here’s the full audio of the debate; it’s about 1hr 10mins but I’ve put highlights in my Pod Delusion report! I’ve also put timings on my notes below so that you can skip to the relevant bits if you like.

Antony had met Jonathan in July 2012 for Sunday Morning live, they had some email exchanges but they stopped because:

“he didn’t seem to like my Human Rights arguments and kept saying things like live and let live“

- which I thought was funny, because that is pretty much the crux of the anti-circ position. And that boring old “human rights” argument people keep digging up, ugh!

Antony has tried in previous years to get routine infant circumcision debated at the BMA annual meeting; apparently, though, changing the wording of a proposal to remove “female” so that you’re discussing infant genital surgery generally is a no-no. Better luck this year, hopefully.

Debatable

It’s worth noting that some of the oft-discussed issues around MGM were irrelevant in this case. Arkush (I’ll refer to him as JA and to Antony as AL throughout) argues only from the perspective of a Jewish man upholding his faith; his interest is in the “religious rights” of individuals and families, so ignores arguments to do with necessity/benefit, health, female genital cutting and so forth. (For more on these, please see previous posts.)

I think an important take-home from this debate was something AL also pointed out: that there does seem to be a confusion in these of arguments. People cite “parental rights”, requesting tolerance, respect and permission to keep doing what they want to do. All well and good, until you harm other people.

The problem here seems to be that some parents do not believe their children are people in their own right. Interesting, as I wonder how many anti-abortion campaigners (especially in the USA) are pro-circumcision?? That’s a tangent though.

Without recognising that a child’s right to bodily integrity exists and you should really respect it, people end up thinking they can treat their child-property however they wish – sometimes culminating in something as disturbing as removing their most sensitive erogenous body part.

Obviously I am completely biased as a fully-fledged intactivist; there was no way JA would have convinced me of his position. He was at all times calm and polite, to his credit. However he also clearly holds some disturbing views about mental health (accusing all men who are unhappy about their circumcised status, who claim emotional trauma, to in fact have some other underlying condition) and the non-religious (with another worrying suggestion that lack of faith may lead to psychological issues, and people being devoid of values).

AL has kindly allowed me to use his slides to add information here, so you can find some interspersed with my notes below (part 2. AL 15 minutes).

Summary

JA considers it his right as a Jewish person to remove his sons’ foreskins in accordance with the traditions of his culture. He does not believe it is at all harmful. He argues against banning things we find distasteful, carrying this argument to an interesting and shocking conclusion when he disagrees with banning one of the most disturbing forms of male circumcision: the metzitzah b’peh, in which the Mohel sucks the blood off the child’s wound, thus exposing him to disease and an increased risk of death. Live and let live? The baby being worth little consideration here, apparently.

AL draws on strong arguments based in medical ethics to highlight that non-medically justified (it very rarely is) routine infant circumcision (RIC, or more accurately NTEF: non-therapeutic excision of the foreskin) is a permanently damaging procedure with complications that are often serious, and parents should not have the “right” to choose cosmetic surgery for minors, just because they are their parents. The child is not their property, and their responsibility is one of protection.

—

1. JA 15 minutes

00:00:00

Started with an appeal to tradition “Judaism is one of the world’s oldest faiths” (00:02:00)

The bible is clear that is matters “how we treat other people…” Indeed!

Rules, customs, values and ethical considerations

He follows Jewish traditions because he wants to

He would like family to inherit his tradition and values in turn

Judaism & Islam practise circumcision (asks us to note only boys at 8 days in Judaism) (00:02:45)

God commanded the practice from Abraham, with no reason given (00:02:55) “I wanted to keep that precept”

He “some Jews” pick and choose which parts of the tradition to keep, seemed to disapprove (00:03:30)

‘Brit’ (as in Brit milah, the circumcision ceremony) means covenant or promise (00:03:45)

It’s “more logical to keep all the rules I possibly can” (00:04:20)

Says circumcision is “safe and simple” (00:04:30)

Must be performed by specially trained and regulated individuals, “many are doctors” (00:04:45)

“Initiation Society” set up in 1752 (00:05:05)

Cited example of royal family being circumcised and the same doctor cutting him as did Prince Charles ?! (00:05:45)

“In the Jewish community, complications are virtually unknown” – cited high standards (00:06:00)

Appreciates the arguments against and respects them (00:06:50). Guesses they consist of:

1) Wrong to impose on babies? “There are many things we decide for our children” (00:08:00) Waiting would be worse, it’s “safest and kindest … when the child is 8 days old” (00:08:50) and “more painful at 18″ (00:11:15)

2) Psychological issues? He dismisses these, calls it an “odd” claim, saying “some people believe they are… not in my experience” thinks any problems are down to something else and people blame circ only as displacement. (00:09:45)

“Children have a right to be brought up in a faith we choose for them…” (00:10:20)

People are glad and relieved and grateful this was chosen (00:10:45)

“I would not like to look different from them” ! (00:11:00)

To “we disapprove of this ritual/custom/value so we ought to ban it” he says the fact you disapprove is not a reason to ban; unless socially harmful (00:11:45)

We regulate rather than ban e.g. smoking (00:12:20)

Taking away “rights to believe” (00:12:45) – “It is not a fair way to run society… unless you can prove it is harmful to society as a whole” – 4000 years Jewish/muslim tradition… 60% American men cut (00:13:30)

Somehow tries to justify by quoting BHA (00:14:25) “Recognises the dignity of individuals… treats them with fairness and respect… respects and promotes freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religious belief” – “so please give me that equal treatment, let me circumcise my son” – from the perspective of a parent who wishes to cut children.

—

2. AL 15 minutes

00:15:50

Main points:

Function & sensitivity; autonomy; irreversibility; indoctrination; confusion in discussing parental rights

It is often argued by those in favour of ritual circumcision that parents have the right to procure circumcision in much the same way as they decide which school to send them to, whether to baptise them and the favourite comparator, whether or not to vaccinate their child. (00:17:45)

Childhood immunisation is an intervention that cannot wait until adulthood and one with overwhelming evidence of protection from serious childhood diseases such as measles and tetanus. It does not remove body parts.

(00:18:15) Responsibilities of doctors

GMC guidance first words: “make the care of the patient your first concern”

Primum non nocere

(00:18:50) In September 2012 GMC issued a child safeguarding statement acknowledging possible damaging influence of religious and cultural beliefs:

In some cases, it may be difficult to identify where parents’ freedom to bring up their children in line with their religious and cultural practices or beliefs becomes a cause for concern about a child’s or young person’s physical or emotional well-being.

(00:19:20) Key principles of Medical Ethics:

1) Autonomy 2) Beneficence 3) Non-maleficance 4) Justice

People think “their rights are under threat when they can’t cut someone else’s body?!” (00:20:10)

constraints on personal autonomy should never be used by people claiming ‘cultural autonomy’ to justify the forced removal of healthy body parts from non-consenting people. (00:21:05)

It has been illegal to tattoo children from 1969 (00:21:50)

For those without the capacity to choose, questions must be asked about procedures: is it permanent or temporary? Is there clinical benefit? Any restriction of future decisions? (00:22:20)

Not only do medical associations not recommend it, many condemn (00:23:10):

The Royal Dutch Medical Association “…a violation of a boy’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”
The President of the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons, (BAPS) “…an irreversible mutilating procedure… rarely, if ever, an indication for male circumcision of boys aged less than 5 years old”
Chairman of the Swedish Paediatric Society “…an assault”
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons “…does not support… routine circumcision”

Was promoted to limit masturbation (00:24:30)

1993 study in the Journal of Surgery, looked into complications (00:24:50):

- Meatal Stenosis (narrowed urethra opening)
- Scarring and sinuses
- Erectile dysfunction
- Denuding of penile skin
- Psychosexual problems
- Infection and bleeding
- Urinary difficulties
- Amputation of the Penis
- Death

Nigerian midwife manslaughter conviction 2013, baby Goodluck

Birmingham hospitals provide circumcisions on the NHS. FOI requests have revealed data showing that complications often cited as “tragic and unforeseen” “isolated incidents” are actually quite common (00:26:20)

For an operation the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons say is rarely if ever needed.

Sorrells 2007 and Hoebeke 2013 on sensitivity and function; circumcision removes the most sensitive area of the penis. (00:27:10)

Frisch 2011 reported on circumcision harms to women: “Frequent Orgasm Difficulties in Danish men… and a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women” (00:28:15)

Men who speak out about circumcision damage are often isolated by circumcising communities, threatened and ignored. They are not well-supported to argue their case and are conveniently seen as non-existent, with advocates always saying they “haven’t heard” anyone complaining. It’s a sensitive issue anyway and being shunned for disagreeing makes it even less simple to do. (00:28:45)

November 2009 lawsuit between 20 y/o man and his GP over his meatal stenosis, dysuria, abrasive pain, tight circumcision, a sinus and asymmetric scarring leading to bent penis; was told he had “no case for medical negligence, because this level of damage is fairly routine” (00:29:20)

The UN convention on rights of the child 1989 – signed by all countries except Somalia and the USA
Article 14 (1) Respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Article 19 (1) Protect the child from all forms of… violence, injury or abuse… including sexual abuse whilst in the care of parent(s)…or any other person who has the care of the child
Article 24 (3) Take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children. (00:30:10)

Blinded by religious privilege, we can lose sight of the child, and the adult the child will become

—

3. JA 5 minute retort

00:31:45

Emotive language!! Anti-semitic? (!)

40 million Jews, who collect data (really? Where is it?)

we don’t argue that it’s needed so that’s a moot point

WHO, AAP ‘pro’ stances

I don’t follow the practice because of health benefits “although HIV is drastically lower”

BMA and GMC have circ guidance! Ethical and religious values are important

These [negative comments] are minority views and not reflective of the whole practice

I want to make decisions for my children

in society we tolerate costly things e.g. drugs and smoking

—

4. AL 5 minute retort

00:36:35

We should aim for progress, not tradition

Actually the USA is the minority view.

Obviously it’d be better to have some actual data on here!

In Jewish law: if 3 of your babies die, you don’t have to cut the 4th

Mohel reports are… where? Also easily dismissed

Milah UK Autumn 2012 set up to challenge German ruling

BMA is clear on circ, illegal under Human Rights act? BMA conference debates

—

5. Questions and discussion

00:41:00

1) Edward Presswood

You said your son was circumcised and didn’t even cry. Can you describe how it was done without making him cry?

JA: “I’m a bit squeamish but I wasn’t there. Local anaesthetic, quick, guard in place, wine in mouth to encourage child to sleep, feeding after, Mohel visits for following 2 days” (00:41:10)

Defends Jewish practices in comparison to ‘less well regulated’ procedures (00:42:05) such as baby Goodluck and another boy who died after a Rabbi cut him (00:42:40). Blamed the mother for ignoring instructions to call doctor/hospital/mohel if there was any bleeding. AL interjects with further information (00:43:25). “The issue is that taking a knife to a normal child’s body exposes them to risk that they don’t need to have”

JA: “complications in the Jewish community are extremely rare”

2) Jewish audience member: possible harm to welfare [when not cut]? Would boys have preferred “most likely” to have had it when they were younger? (00:45:20)

3) Difficulty with making things illegal; wouldn’t it still happen (00:46:25) – see FGM. No prosecutions. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make things illegal.

4) USA ‘looking normal’ concerns (00:47:55)

JA: Jewish community isn’t responsible for USA high circumcision rate; social reasons

AL: AAP is a trade organisation; it’s a cultural phenomenon and doctors profit from it (00:49:25).

5) EP: Orthodox Judaism Mohels – what about tolerating/banning the sucking [metzitzah b'peh] practice? (00:50:15) – JA wouldn’t ban it!! “I’m just very chairy about going for bans” (00:52:25 – sorry about my phone buzzing there!)

00:52:50: AL on deaths from circumcision being excluded from studies’ data analysis (approx. 200/year)

6) 00:54:30 – asks AL for opinion on HIV/circumcision research. NB/ 57:30:00 a member of WHO circ “expert” board invented circumcision devices?

7) My question (00:58:15): would you really consider opposition to genital mutilation (as it is generally universal where it occurs; regarding male or female, hospital or elsewhere, religious or cultural etc.) to be anti-semitic?

I won the debate with this, because JA fell for Godwin’s law, and compared us all to Nazis and communists (00:58:45-01:00:40):

“the chancellor Angela Merkel was acutely concerned about a country where circumcision was last banned – incidentally 2 world rulers in modern times who sought to ban circumcision were Hitler and Stalin – so that’s the company you’re in”

At that point I did a \o/

8) How can you agree with criminalisation of theft and not with thieving a part of someone’s body? (01:02:10)

JA: parental decision because child is too young, a parent is entitled to that – compares to ear piercing or tattoos. Defends his right to remove healthy body parts from an incapacitated child. Cites “everyone I know in the Jewish community feels the same way”

AL: reiterates that those who speak out are ostracised by “the community” (01:04:30) and JA confirms that one woman on the Board of Deputies was removed because of her synagogue was ‘upset’ by her dissenting opinions (01:05:15). Insists someone would not be ignored if they said they were “born with” a circumcision that harmed them, but is picked up on this because he already dismissed them in his speech.

9) How would you feel if your son had to be castrated (?), how would you explain that to him? (01:07:00)

JA doesn’t seem to accept that risk of serious injury or death is a good reason to avoid this unnecessary surgery, saying hewould feel “desperately guilty and sorrowful” – he would say “I consciously exposed you to such risk as there was … but I probably would make the same choice again”

EP: asks if he does recognise there is a risk (yes) (01:08:45)

He also let slip that he believes those who lack faith also lack any values (01:09:15). Nice.

Cuts, labels and preferences

Last night I stumbled upon (via a friend) what is probably one of the best posts I’ve read in a long time about male circumcision – it’s got just about everything there. The religious angle, of course, since the article is written by Jewish Nobel prize winner, George Wald.

But more than that, it highlights what a complex issue genital cutting is and expands upon the probable motivations that drive people to it. Where angry victims tend to place the blame (squarely upon mothers, except in Judaism); FGM; issues of gender and misogyny; the less reported forms of MGM outside of the USA and Europe; basic embryology; health myths (for the skeptical readers!); and personal perspectives from those involved.

—

My one problem with article is minor but it started me thinking, so here it is. His use of the term “bisexual“. I think in the article’s context he means something more along the lines of intersex/hermaphroditic. He’s talking about the first people in creation myths being of both genders, parallel with the contested view of a god who is “both male and female”. That’s not what bisexual means, at least now – what it actually means is being attracted both to people who identify as the same gender as you do, and to those whose gender identity is different from yours.

To improve understanding, a common point is that you wouldn’t be surprised by someone who likes people whatever their hair/skin colour, height, or weight. For many bisexual people, gender is also no bar to attraction or, indeed, love. Through ignorance and misunderstanding, there are so many misconceptions and insults thrown at those who self-identify as bi, and in recent years I have become more aware of it and more annoyed by it. Bisexuality does not imply greed or promiscuity, it is not a product of indecisiveness, immature experimentation or a phase. Assumptions along these lines are offensive.

Bisexual pride colours

Biphobia, including the assumptions listed above, may not be a concept everyone is familiar with. Sometimes people argue bisexuality doesn’t even exist, but I disagree very strongly for many reasons. Bi-invisibility is part of biphobia; people often (consciously or otherwise) try to erase bisexual identity when they find it. Settling down with a partner of the opposite or same sex does not then magically make you straight or gay! Just as a prolonged involuntary dry spell does not make anyone who would rather be sexually active in fact asexual. Bisexual individuals who have only had sexual experiences with the opposite sex do not have to identify as “curious” – would you question someone’s professed heterosexuality at age 21 just because they happen to have remained a virgin?

Not everyone chooses a label for themselves. Some do not find it necessary, some find it restricting – people who have absolutely no boundaries with respect to gender (or anything else) and their relationships may, for example, prefer pansexual. However, there are good arguments against using semantics and etymology as reasons to shun labels – but especially, against criticising other people’s self-identification with them.

Many labels are reductive, they kind of have to be by their very nature. But people often like to be part of a group, it helps us to feel we belong and are accepted. Most of us crave that; we seek out communities that value similar ideas and this helps us value ourselves. It can be integral to our happiness, though may not be essential for everyone. Uniting under a banner – literally or figuratively – can also help push forward the drive for equality and fair treatment. It is important to bear in mind that identification with labels is (or should be) a choice that people make and when minority groups attack each other for it (bisexuals are somewhat famously persecuted by both gay and straight communities) it is so self-defeating.

Coming to grips with these ideas in theory is one thing. Living them in practice is another. For example, having seen otherwise sensible and lovely people come out with some nasty transphobia (something I have shamefully done in the past myself), I still consider direct experience – meeting people and getting to know them – to be one of the best ways of overcoming irrational prejudices. Once you meet people and see that your assumptions were total crap, it’s much easier to move on and make positive changes to opinions and behaviours. This, for me, is also one of the strongest arguments against segregated education, particularly on religious grounds.

I did go to a single-sex school, but that didn’t preclude my having male friends. It did mean I encountered a lot of homophobia (obviously going to school with pupils of one gender automatically makes you gay!) and, indeed, biphobia (well if you fancy any of the girls, you must fancy all of them! Another stupid biphobic idea that’s so obviously ridiculous if you apply it to straight or gay people) – but ultimately I feel positive about my education at least in academic terms. That’s a whole other post, though. Feel free to leave your views, teachers and single-sex/co-education fans!

—

The “gender binary” is a problematic idea for lots of people and even male/female labels can be oppressive. This fantastic article sparked a little debate recently. I have had abuse shouted at me when I’ve not been looking obviously female – which probably isn’t too often but still – and people are often shocked by this. I hate that women and men are expected to look certain ways, and if you look out for it I’m sure you’ll see that insults based on this are common.

For some reason, not being able to work out the contents of someone’s pants (or indeed their sex chromosomes) is a legitimate source of comedy or, worse, justification for derision or violence. “Justin Bieber looks like a girl in that photo! Hahaha!” “Is that person over there a boy or a girl? I don’t know! Let’s beat the shit out of them to teach them a lesson.” – what? Why are people required to be open books? Misogyny, homophobia, transphobia – people don’t realise it, and they continue it.

Yet this kind of restriction is something that the majority don’t think about – they probably don’t have to, if they’re lucky to fit within the “normal” boxes that the culture has predefined. That extends to many lifestyles, decisions and qualities – we are not all the same and society’s (as opposed to the individual’s) need to label is often so restrictive that it oppresses huge numbers of people. But something else that annoys me is hypocrisy around protecting people’s right to choose and the nature of preferences.

—

I believe people can do whatever they like, especially when it comes to sex, if all necessary consent is obtained and no one is being harmed. So, I get pretty angry when people start throwing around accusations of -isms and -phobias based on other people’s sexual preferences. Thankfully we do have the right to decide who we sleep with! We have no obligations to anyone in that regard, from asexuals to enthusiastic sex workers, our choices are (or should be) our own. Don’t talk about choice and how important it is and then dictate to people what they should and shouldn’t do with their sex lives.

Attraction (or lack thereof) is innate, not chosen, as pro-equality campaigners will tend to argue. If you’re not attracted to someone of the same sex, not sleeping with them does not make you a homophobe, obviously – similarly, not being attracted to people from a particular “race” – or to none except similar to yours – does not make you racist. As long as your only discrimination is not sleeping with them, I don’t see how you could possibly come to any other conclusion. You’re looking for things to be angry about, perhaps. I witnessed a bit of a Twitter argument about this recently, and it’s one I’ve had myself, so now is a good time to make the point.

There are also different kinds of attraction: including (but perhaps not restricted to) physical, emotional, intellectual – different people place different levels of importance on those things and choose their partners accordingly. I’m a fan of all three at once, which is reflected in my history (that’s my own business unless I choose to talk to people about it!) and preferences – some decide to call that “picky”. Those with broader tastes might say they don’t have “a type”, or disconnect their physical experiences from other aspects of their lives.

These are all choices we can make, yet often we find ourselves judged for them. The “less discerning” among us might be labelled sluts or studs (again, depending on your gender and the ridiculous expectations people hold based on it) and those who are very selective about who they sleep with or simply place little importance on the physical might be frigid or gay – that most pathetic of insults that I still struggle to banish from my vocabulary because of the university environment.

This destructive judgmental behaviour is a bit like feminists sneering at women who have chosen to be stay-at-home-mums when that’s what makes them and their family happy and works in their relationships. Or when polyamorous folk start calling their monoamorous friends “weird”. When people with a particular fetish put down those who happen not to share it. Acceptance has to be given as well as received, and if you are going around being very negative about groups you don’t identify with then I’m not sure you’re helping, however active you are in other progressive causes. Live and let live.

—

Choice is what it’s all about. You should be free to choose things for yourself, in your own life, especially when you are harming no one. However, the imagined “parental choice” to cut the genitals of their children needs to go. That dangerous decision takes away choice from the victim, who can never regain what is taken from them, who can never choose for themselves what was done to their body. Irreversible damage. Adults choosing body modification/cosmetic surgery/assignment surgery for themselves is clearly different and irrelevant to the GM debate.

I might write a post that’s actually about GM soon..!

The silent misogyny

This post brings in a few different stories to make my point, which ultimately is a simple one, yet it still seems to pass many people by. The insistence that women are already equal (more or less) and feminism is stupid is one I am faced with quite frequently. Obviously I disagree – if you know me or my writing you probably know I will make a case for the importance of feminism, or, if you prefer, pushing for gender equality.

I find the definition of words used in such debates to detract from the point somewhat, but in the interests of clarity… skip to the end*, because I don’t think that’s the interesting bit!

No breasts, please, we’re bishops

I’m sure you will have seen the news that the church has decided women can’t be bishops. I’ve had a few conversations about this and as I have a lot of friends who are also entirely non-religious, a lot of the talk has been along the lines of:

Well it’s irrelevant…

I disagree [edit, here's the BHA on it]. No, I’m not religious. I would much prefer it if women stopped trying to join the clubs that promote misogyny. “Bring them down from the inside!” doesn’t quite work, I don’t think, but hey – I’m all for choice and if women want to work in/for the church, that’s ultimately up to them. Except it isn’t, because the church has now stuck two fingers up at the equality laws we have by preventing women from holding this position of power.

The knock-on of this is that the House of Lords is also to remain a women-free zone. Despite us making up half the country’s population. That’s not representative and it’s not acceptable. That is why it’s relevant – the church, shockingly, still has a huge say in our country’s policies, it affects popular opinion and a brazen vote of no confidence in women is not something we should just wave off as being of no consequence. Maybe it’s not to you, Mr Atheist White Man, and yes it shows up the church for what it is (a backwards bunch of bigots who want to operate outside of the law) but that doesn’t mean we should ignore it.

From cradle to work desk

Our workplaces are often where we spend a lot of our time. Employment law, including the example linked above, is important in making sure everyone is treated fairly in the workplace and companies as a whole do not discriminate. Science, sadly, is not yet free of sexism. There’s a really interesting piece on Nature.com today about their resolve to address inequality in their publishing sphere. They acknowledge, as I do below, that sexism can frequently happen “by accident”. The only way to stop this is to look at the evidence for inequality, accept that it exists and then go on to address it. So I hope this is the start of something great over at Nature HQ – it also reminds me of recent attempts to increase the public profile of women in science, for example by mass-editing Wikipedia.

However, inequality in the workplace, whether due to hiring policy (conscious or not) or applications coming in, has its roots deeper, earlier in our lives. A little bit of anecdote in this run-up: when I went camping this summer, there was a family who pitched next to us with about 4 children. This proved unpleasant in terms of trying to sleep, but one of the little girls (about age 5) was very chatty and I warmed to her a bit when she informed us of her hope of becoming an astronaut and maybe going to Mars. I asked her if she’d heard about the cool new robot that had gone to the planet, and asked her to promise to let us know when she became famous. What was sad, though, was her saying she enjoyed doing ballet but wished her brother would go too, only “boys can’t do that” – why not? Go and be an astronaut! Let him do what he enjoys!

I was never forced to do anything like ballet or other ‘girly’ activities equally unappealing to me, and I’m glad. My interest in the natural world was always supported. I played golf for a while (but was put off by the overwhelming anti-female sentiment that pervaded the club and my dad’s apparent disinterest in helping me to improve) and I did some karate. I have also been upset by hearing friends’ parental resentment that son A likes dancing (oh no!), unlike son B who’s a good boy and loves rugby. Why not encourage your kids in whatever they take to, whatever they want to get better at, instead of all this gender roles bullshit?

Importantly, all of this stuff can influence decisions we make as children and young people, which can then filter into our careers later in life. Here in the UK we choose our limited number of subjects quite early on. The Institute of Physics report on how few girls go on to study physics A level is quite disturbing, and no doubt this continuing idea that girls-do-X and boys-do-Y is partly to blame. Please rein it in, parents, teachers, siblings, companies, everyone.

The ugly undercurrent

This leads me to my final comment, on the phenomenon I refer to in the title. Only for many it is not so silent. The first link I added, to this article by Laura Bates who founded the Everyday Sexism Project, highlights the kind of behaviour that often goes unchallenged despite how unacceptable and damaging it really is:

as another woman cycled through central London she reported how, “a van driver blocked my path so he could shout “I’M GOING TO RAPE YOU!”

Who was this man? It would not surprise me if he were a married father of however many, doing his dayjob. I posted this article on Facebook with my thoughts on what this all means: what amazes me, particularly considering this van driver, is that these people have lives and friends – what would said friends, family, employers, say about their behaviour? How would they feel if they saw someone behaving that way towards a woman whom they loved?

It seems there’s a big disconnect still in many people’s lives – a distinction between people-I-know-who-are-female, whom they care about and respect, and women generally. The latter are public property, exist for their amusement/pleasure/derision, and can be treated like less than human beings. That is our institutional misogyny, that is our problem to address.

I do believe that these attitudes are very much worth talking about, worth exposing and criticising, worth combating. I think it affects all of us – if you’re someone who feels this stuff is irrelevant, maybe you have a daughter or a sister. I bet she’s experienced some of this. Maybe this has made her let go of her dreams. Maybe that happened to your mum, too. Are you ok with that? I hope not.

*My definitions

Feminism is about equal treatment based on gender, not preferential treatment of women (just, preferential compared to what we have now, which is inequality, and if you disagree with that then my use of the word obviously will not please you. I don’t care).

Misogyny is a word I would use to describe cultural attitudes, widespread phenomena that affect women negatively and prevent progress, injustices suffered disproportionately by women. I’d hesitate to call someone a misogynist because yes, it literally means the hatred of women, but the meanings of words can change. Although, if someone is quite clearly hateful of women because they are women, then I would be more confident in using it.

Sexism would be something I would say to describe one or many acts of discrimination based on gender, and I would more readily call someone sexist than a misogynist because it seems less emotionally driven; sexism can come from unconscious places but let’s call a spade a spade. Don’t be offended because you’ve been called out on something, if ultimately it is true.

A lot of the attitudes people hold are passively generated, due to where one grows up, the views passed on to you, and how much you choose to examine them. This is the same for any kind of prejudice. Children are a blank slate and largely free from judgmental tendencies, but it depends on their environment as to how they’ll turn out. Parents and peers have great effects on the development of views about the rest of society; the categories you fall into, and those you don’t.

I grew up with a lot of homophobia, sexism and other nasty things – it’s taking me years, a lot of reading, interaction and thought to acknowledge and address this. I don’t think there’s any shame in admitting that – only in doing nothing to rectify it. I’m not done yet.

Persecuted? Really?!

Shut up.

That was the original full title of something I wrote a while back in a small fit of rage, regarding religious people who insist they’re being “unfairly marginalised” and other such stupid phrases, just because their (actually unfair) institutional privilege is being eroded a bit. Toys out of pram, etc.

So I’m reposting it here with some significant adjustments in light of recent events – hoping that not everyone who saw it first time will remember it, and that it will reach some new people.

First, this week we have had the utterly shocking and disgusting news that some Pakistani militants decided to shoot a 14 year-old girl in the head because she was a secular activist who spoke out about the problems in her country. As a friend said, surely you can be fairly confident you’re holding a better position when you are not scared into shooting teenage girls?

Second, do read this excellent piece by Martin Robbins in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestions that because they’re not allowed to discriminate against the gays, the christians are being discriminated against. It’s a short but difficult read and it needed saying.

On to my (somewhat sweary) rant, which I’ve edited a bit to update and worked in some of the following discussion at the end. Feel free to continue it!

—

There was a story doing the rounds some time ago about a man who was told by the police to remove a little A4 printed sign from his window. I just wanted to use it as a springboard to complain about something that’s really been getting on my nerves lately. It said:

Religions are fairy stories for adults

It turns out, according to the police, that it wasn’t actually true. Regardless, I can see why people don’t like that kind of statement – if you think your religion is all about the truth and the greatest philosophy and moral this and purpose that, I can see why you wouldn’t like such a statement.

But, you know what I don’t like?

I don’t like people in town centres shoving flyers at me that are all about how only the people who believe Jesus was the son of god are the righteous ones, and they’ll be rewarded after death, while the firey pits of hell are reserved for the likes of me, my friends and all the other cool people in the world.

I don’t like adverts on the buses, on the underground, on the side of the road – saying that your church is the best one and the only way to salvation is through joining your social club.

I don’t like people knocking on my fucking front door when I’m busy (or not) doing my own thing in my house.

So I’m sorry if you don’t like something someone printed on a piece of paper and put in their window.

You know what else people can put in their own windows? Pretty much whatever they want. Religious symbols; statements of political leaning and for whom you plan to vote, thus hoping to influence others; flags of this nation, another, or some random sign of allegiance like to a sports team or something.

That’s fine really, because it’s your house to do with as you will! Within the bounds of the law. And guess what? We don’t have blasphemy laws any more, thank the invisible pink unicorn.

You know what else pisses me off?

We’re being persecuted for having faith! We should be allowed to show it and be proud of it! You militant atheists/secularists/satanists, you’re ruining it for us!

Again, no, shut your wafer-hole.

Persecuted? Really? Hmm, let’s see, when I walk around London, for example, what can I see from lots of places? St Paul’s Cathedral, there are churches all over the place, you can barely move for them. Similarly in many cities. Not just churches either, the mosque dominates one direction of views from Regent’s Park as well. Plus everyone knows the joys of Tottenham Court Road – there be the Scientologists’ lair! And If you want to cross the Millennium Bridge to go to the Tate Modern (opposite St Paul’s), you’ll wander past the Salvation Army headquarters, a big spangly glass place.

Apart from people who’ve actually been there, I doubt anyone can name any of the humanist hubs in London; there’s Conway Hall, an old lecture theatre that holds talks and the like, there’re the BHA head offices on Gower St, a squished terrace building with about 4 storeys (where I used to sing, incidentally).

Both of them are inconspicuous – you’ll only notice Conway Hall’s agenda if you stop at the window and start reading the posters and things. Compared to the churches that reach for the sky, the temples with their huge (and often patronising) signs, I fail to see how anyone is being restricting in showing off or practising their faith here.

But a man puts a poster in a window? Fucking militant atheists shoving their non-belief in our faces!!

How many presidents of the US have been Christian? Hmm. How much of an absolute revelation was it for Obama to even acknowledge that people of no faith even exist? Being an atheist in America is one of the worst things you could possibly admit to at the moment. It can lead to bullying, discrimination and far worse.

Following the state religion, or in some cases any religion (where secular values and personal freedoms are generally upheld, I’m not going into religious feuds/wars and such here) tends to give you a fucktonne of privilege, people.

So, if you start talking to me about religion-things, and I eventually get bored or ask you to be quiet, because it’s nonsense to me, don’t tell me that I’m the militant one. For one, I despise violence, it rubs my moral compass the wrong way (guess what, I have one without a god-book, so do you – how else did you know which bits were worth following and which weren’t??). So militant is probably one of the poorest word choices you could have made in the first place.

Tell me next time you get handed an atheist flyer that tells you you’re a bad person, or you see a massive sign telling you you should become an atheist right now or else!

Secularism upholds your right to have a religion, as well as mine not to have one, so kindly gtfo with your persecution tosh, live, and let live.

—

The story I originally mentioned may not be accurate, but we need not look far to find stories that most certainly did happen; people being angry about losing their jobs because, er, they weren’t doing the job (see the refusal to perform civil ceremonies because onoesthegays that’s against my religion – well you better do a job you can do then, don’t expect the world to change for you).

There’s the rage about not being allowed to display your religious symbols wherever and however you like – whatever the situation. Sometimes it’s inappropriate. Yet somehow this translates to persecution?!

How many people do you see walking down the street, whom you can identify as non-religious? Very few indeed (with the advent of the stylised A and some funny tshirts, sometimes you can spot a few, but I still think these are largely confined to specific events.

Signs of religious affiliation are all around us – sometimes I do find it a bit intimidating, but I’ve never bothered to complain to anyone because, well, so far it hasn’t hurt me. And I hope it never will.

The idea that people are discriminated against for being religious is just madness, they need to open their eyes. We’ve still got religious schools for fuck’s sake, where kids are discriminated against based on their parents’ religion, and even teachers refused jobs. Religious groups have hugely unjust influence in government and policy… need I go on.

It’s the same deal as with the “men’s rights” movement. Traditional privilege-holders getting upset that their (literally?) god-given elevated status over everyone else is being challenged and the balance redressed.

No special status for anyone; freedom for all – separate church and state!!

*Waves placards*

—

Here is the most excellent Popehat discussing the aforementioned somewhat shocking legal standpoint:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/20/we-few-we-fragile-few/

He concluded:

“What is the character of a person who sees a sign like that in a pensioner’s window, and runs to the police to complain?

Could a person with such character stand up, against great odds, in the face of the the very casques that did affright the air at Agincourt? Could such a person do his duty, as England expected, at Trafalgar? Could such a person keep calm and carry on? Would such a person fight on beaches, on landing grounds, in fields and streets, in the hills, and never surrender? Is such a person capable of having a finest hour?

I ask because of this: societies that make rules like this one, encouraging its citizens to scamper mewling behind the skirts of the government when faced with the least offense, produce people with the character necessary to take them up on the offer. It is hard to imagine how a nation run by people of that character can endure — or at least, how it can endure as anyplace you’d want to live. “

And from a friend who is a somewhat high-powered lawyer as well:

“Any law which opens an individual up to prosecution for making a statement needs to be justified as dealing with a real harm that outweighs freedom of expression. This law just doesn’t make the cut, so yes, we need to reform it (the civil liberties/human rights groups were screaming about this at the time).”

—

Essentially, any time I hear someone whining about their religious ‘freedom’ being ‘attacked’ just because they’re being made to fall in line with the progression of society, with the law, with not-being-a-bigoted-dickhead – they get zero sympathy from me.