Skinny bitch

In our culture, we’re all taught that the shape of our body really matters.

Two separate issues

It starts early. I remember complaining to my mum that my thighs were fat, when I was about 8 years old. How absurd (because they weren’t, and what a ridiculous thing for a child to be worrying about), when I look back, but I remember how I felt at the time and it was serious. It’s a pretty constant battle for most women trying not to scrutinise our bodies day after day – this obsession can form the basis of debilitating illnesses.

Childhood obesity is also of course a real problem – that parents cannot afford or do not have sufficient education to feed their children healthy food that doesn’t put their lives at risk is a tragedy, and a huge challenge for public health measures to tackle. It’s important for us to maintain a healthy weight for a variety of reasons; it lessens the risk of heart disease and cancer for starters. We all want our friends and families to be happy and well, so if people are trying to lose weight or bulk up to address this, great.

But there’s a difference between weight-related concerns that focus on health and another category of scrutiny; one that is far more shallow, cultural and full of underlying hatred and insecurity. People (and I cannot exclude myself) make negative comments on other people’s bodies all the time. We’re taught that it’s OK, that it’s our business, it’s just humour, and so on.

The ugly side

The women’s magazines (and the men’s for that matter), just about everything on television, the tabloids and many of the people we interact with daily – they all think it’s acceptable, appropriate, or even some sort of duty, to monitor fluctuations in how fat people are, or are not. I won’t get into the issues around having babies and what the media does with that, it’s a bit of a separate topic.

My problem I suppose is the kind of language that surrounds all of this. “You’re so skinny, you bitch“ - it comes from a variety of people, people who are close and loving, people who are acquaintances and really have no right to comment. It’s seems to be based on the idea that it’s so important for women to fit their bodies into acceptable forms, and what this does to us – whether we realise it or not – concerns me. Obviously men face these things, too – “fat-shaming” is not exclusively directed towards women.

A particularly high-profile and shocking case of it has occurred this week and came from Abercrombie and Fitch. As most of us are aware, the USA’s obesity rates are shockingly high, and most shops will stock American sizes 0-14 and sometimes above. A&F, however, are very unlikely to do so, as Robin Lewis revealed of their CEO:

“He doesn’t want larger people shopping in his store, he wants thin and beautiful people… He doesn’t want his core customers to see people who aren’t as hot as them wearing his clothing. People who wear his clothing should feel like they’re one of the ‘cool kids.’”

So apparently you have to be thin to be hot and cool - oxymoronic vocabulary quirks aside, I’m sure most people would disagree with that. Personal tastes are one thing (I am attracted to people of a similar slim build to myself, for example – and I have friends with exclusive preferences for bigger builds) but they vary hugely between individuals, and one cannot criticise anyone else for that. But this retail policy from a company CEO does sound prejudiced and extremely insulting.

On the other hand, they are a company and are permitted to choose their audience and which kinds of customers they want their products marketed towards. If you specifically choose some subjective categories like “good-looking” and include “thin” within the entry criteria to that category… well, it’s offensive. Is it wrong? I’d say it’s ill-advised, much like I dislike sexist marketing for MAN CRISPS. Is it worse, or not, than that?

Fighting the tide

As I grew up I heard my dad call Lisa Riley on You’ve Been Framed a “fat cow” and say she should get off the TV as a result. Or he’d say “your fat friend…” instead of using their name (partly because he didn’t know it, but that always upset me). It’s easy for those of us who can maintain a low body weight relatively easily to point at and accuse people who cannot, but it would be nice if there were some more consideration around.

Going back to the health issue, a lot of conditions can cause people to become overweight, or to have extreme weight fluctuations. Medications can affect this, too; whether it’s a kind of birth control or steroids… how would you feel if that person whose weight you just criticised were undergoing cancer treatment? Sure, we make our little in-jokes quietly to ourselves and each other, but like street harrassment this too often spills over into unwanted and upsetting interactions.

Women with large breasts face an added level of this, with barrages of comments ranging from what people mistakenly think are compliments  to accusations of being too slutty by showing a lot of cleavage (often something that’s difficult for such women to avoid without always wearing some variation of a sack) and an assumption that they should be grateful for what they are “endowed” with.

This is a sad state of affairs for many reasons. For starters, no woman should be judged on the size of her bust; with “flat” chests in my family it’s something I’ve seen the flip-side of, too, and have even received such comments myself (somewhat in error!!) based on strange men deciding it’s something worth using as an insult when I didn’t want to talk to them on a dating site.

As someone pointed out on Twitter this morning, one of many problems with Page 3 is that it perpetuates an idea about breasts, aspirations and attractiveness, which can be really damaging. Mastectomy is tough enough to deal with, without a daily reminder that women are only (desirable) women when they have (big) boobs. While the debate on page 3 is extensive and multi-faceted, if you do want to sign the petition against it, it’s here.

In addition to that, larger ladies have a lot to contend with: health issues such as back pain and possibly breast cancer risk; the inability to find clothes that fit, not to mention them actually being affordable.

All angles

But it’s not just fat-shaming. A friend who deals with multiple health conditions posted the picture on the right this morning and sparked a little debate around it (which prompted me to write this).

I’m also reminded of the Beautiful South‘s song, Perfect 10 (that I alternate between enjoying and not):

The anorexic chicks, the model 6
They don’t hold no weight with me
Well 8 or 9, well that’s just fine
But I like to hold something I can see

I have trouble saying that this is any more acceptable than unsolicited comments towards overweight people instructing them to eat less or run more. It’s a song, sure, and it’s about a couple of big people enjoying each other, but for some reason that strays into insulting others.

Women are often swept along by the misogynistic undercurrent and say incredibly horrible things about other women, as well as judging themselves harshly. I put on weight in my late teens and I lost it in my early 20s, partly due to illness. The amount of comments I have received on this over time is only now beginning to overwhelm me, and when this picture came up suddenly a number of instances came to mind.

I wish my friends, or their friends whom I barely know, didn’t feel the need to call me a bitch for getting back to my normal weight – I’m a small person. I feel more comfortable in myself having lost the excess. But it wasn’t exactly fun getting to that point – as is the case for many people, I’m sure. I didn’t do it for anyone else, or to spite anyone, either. I don’t want to feel like I should apologise just because I fit into something, or it’s too big for me. Being ‘skinny’ shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of all women*, and we shouldn’t be at each other’s throats about it.

When I was eating dangerously little and people kept telling me “Hey, you look great!”, that didn’t exactly spur me on to healthier behaviour. Weight loss and gain is a complicated seesaw and you’re unlikely to know the facts behind it for people you don’t know very well.  It’s also never about one person, or one comment; It’s the frequency and ubiquitous nature of it. Just like one guy inappropriately touching you in a whole lifetime would make no difference, it’s the constant barrage of little things that turn it into a problem.

No stone unturned

Too fat, too thin, ‘real woman’ this, curves or bones that – it seems no one is immune.

*I haven’t touched on fad diets, why I hate gyms or pretty much anything regarding the health & fitness industry. But this article just appeared in my timeline courtesy of a couple of excellent friends, so you can read that for some great commentary on how women in politics are described, some links to what I’ve written above and the writer’s experience of finding a job in fitness. One of the take-home messages being:

“I wonder how my life would have been different if people had encouraged girls (me) to be strong instead of skinny”

And wondering what we can do for our young women today, to spare them some of this crap we’ve grown up with and are now trying to get over!!

“I became a more capable, energetic, independent, and mentally focused person once my focus shifted from what my body  looks like to what my body can do“

Battling sexism

Recently there have been yet more stories centred around sexism and misogyny in our culture. I’d like to discuss two that have interested me this week.

At least they got the apostrophes right..? Via guardian.co.uk

A battle won

Today, thankfully, there has been some Good News! A rarity, it sometimes seems, and something to be celebrated. Congratulations to the Science Museum and everyone who spoke up about Boots separating their children’s toys by gender, and including the sciencey ones only in the boys’ section.

Other retailers have binned this outdated, damaging stereotyping behaviour so, while it’s unfortunate that it’s taken a company like Boots so long, it’s good to see them following suit.

“…It’s clear we have got this signage wrong, and we’re taking immediate steps to remove it from store.” – Boots

Yes, it’s wrong. I’ve said so before and will continue to be angered by needless gender separations in stores for e.g. toys and magazines.

It may well be a bit of a chicken and egg situation. So they say they organised it with the separation because of “customer feedback” – parents want to find toys for their boy/girl easily? They can’t just browse a toys section and pick out something they’d like?

photo by Andrew Holding

To be honest, that sounds like it’s parental stereotyping at work. I’m not going to buy dolls for my boys or cars for my girls, that wouldn’t be right. Well, parents, I implore you – consider your child as a person, irrespective of their genitals/chromosomes, and encourage them in what they enjoy, what they find fascinating, whether you think it’s “gender-appropriate” or not. Be better.

Unfortunately there are other stores – such as Morrisons and Clarks (see image) – who continue to separate toys like this, and it’s frustrating for some parents. Read more in this article by Andrew Holding.

Edit: I have also contacted Wilkinson regarding their toy section that I spotted in Stratford recently. Through this I have discovered this excellent Twitter account, LetToysBeToys! They even have a petition.

A new conflict

You may also have heard that the Bank of England is suggesting that Churchill replace Elizabeth Fry on our £5 notes, which would likely come into effect in a few years, in 2016. This would leave no women on our banknotes. If you really think people are so stupid that you have to point out that the Queen is a woman, you are entirely missing the point. If I must explain, the figures on our notes (apart from the current monarch) are there because of their achievements; their contributions to society and UK progress. Not because they were born into a royal family. So be quiet.

At first glance, this might not seem like the worst thing. The figures on our bank notes change periodically, when we have to redesign the notes to counter fraud. Elizabeth Fry has been on £5 notes since 2002, and we had Florence Nightingale on £10 notes from 1975 to 1994. But they are the only two women, and replacing Fry will erase all acknowledgment of female achievement from our notes for some time – unless one of the others is redesigned with a new female figure at the same time.

Today’s BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour episode included a discussion on the banknotes decision (8 mins long in the link). Plenty of female candidates were pointed out; that most won’t have heard of many of them, despite their amazing work (for example, Beatrice Webb, economist and co-founder of the LSE), is surely reason to increase visibility of forgotten female influences in our history.

Wut about the menz?

I do not accept the argument that history has recorded men as the winners, therefore we should accurately represent that. Here and now we are trying to create a more equal society (well, some of us are) and part of that is doing what we can to correct the mistakes of the past. Acknowledge that sexism and misogyny are alive and well, and used to be even worse – so let’s pull the suppressed achievements of women out of the dark and show them to people living and growing up now. Similar instances of just that include the edit-a-thons in which people have dedicated time to editing pages to give due credit to women, for example in the history of science.

This is important for young women (and men) – to realise that gender is not a barrier to achievement, despite what the history books may show. These little sexist acts build up, and while lacking female role models on banknotes may be a little thing in isolation, it’s one of many that add together to give young people the message that women are underachieving and undeserving of recognition.

I do not agree that striving to have at least one woman on our notes, giving some small recognition to the contributions of approximately half of the population that have been systematically erased, is overcompensating or being unfair to men. Striving for something closer to equality instead of extreme (pro-male) bias, whether that bias be “historically-accurate” or not, is not overcompensating, only pushing for equality. That’s feminism, it’s not asking for no men to be recognised, only to make a positive change that will address an imbalance.

Aside from the gender balance issue, there are other reasons we might object to putting Churchill in particular on our notes (thanks to Liz for pointing that one out).

This will depend on your view of what our currency is for. If you think it’s simply a leaf out of the history books, then this is unlikely to bother you.  The Guardian have picked up on the story and are running a poll. If, however, you would like to object to the removal of all female achievers from our bank notes, you can sign the petition. Also follow @weekwoman and @TheWomensRoomUK on Twitter for more.

Edit: spectacularly on-topic and brilliant is Suzanne Moore’s article today about successful women eschewing feminism as if they don’t need it and never benefited from it. I have had direct experience of this kind of sentiment and am very glad someone has hit the nail on the head with a piece like this.

Another edit: I have also had a rant about the banknotes on this week’s Pod Delusion. Indeed, it is worth acknowledging that Clydesdale bank do in fact have two women on their banknotes; Mary Slessor on the £10 note (bit of a double-edged sword; women’s rights yay! Christianity-spreading boo) and Elsie Inglis on the £50 note – an excellent physician and suffragist.

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.

For A Safer Internet

Today I would like to share a guest post with you, by my friend Colin, who is one of those I.T. people.

Last Tuesday was Safer Internet Day and I asked for a post explaining the importance of the projects that Colin is involved in – hopefully stirring up some interest in terms of staying safe online.

—

Hello

My name is Colin.

You may notice that I am not Maz. You may further notice that I am, in fact, Colin. You have likely gathered this from up there when I stated it.

A brief introduction, then. I’m a Software Engineer¹ for a cyber security company, and I volunteer for a social enterprise programme² for which young professionals go to schools and teach online safety. I’m not going to give the names of either of those things, because then I’d probably have to check with them whether it’s okay to do a thing on someone’s blog, and that sounds like a pain. So I’m going to speak in generics, and specify that everything I have written here is entirely my words with no influence from anyone else. So there. [I have added headings, links and images for your reading pleasure! - M]

Is it secret? Is it safe?

You may not have realised it – it’s admittedly not one of the most famous special occasions – but on February 5th, it was Safer Internet Day. I, therefore, was at a school in London teaching online safety as part of that voluntary shindig, a topic that is growing more vital by the day. If you frequent the technology news on the BBC website, you will have seen this crop up again and again. Heck, you probably see it in the flesh. People creating Facebook groups called “I lost my phone, please post all your numbers here” that are publicly available, or birthday events that everyone can see. And that’s people our age [which is twenty-somethings, by the way - M].

I keep my Facebook pretty locked down (I hope), because it turned up during my university days and I don’t really want people to see photos of me irresponsibly drunk, wearing a ridiculous hat and/or wig, giving my best impression of The Salmon Dance³. It wasn’t fun going through trying to cover up all traces of university foolishness – but it could be so much worse. What if Facebook had my entire childhood on it? Photos of me with yoghurt all over my face? Calling people a poopy-pants? Making unfounded claims about people’s mothers⁴?

The next generation are allowed to join Facebook at the age of thirteen⁵. So it’s going to be hard for them to escape who they used to be – the internet will remember with alarming accuracy [hey, look, Geocities! - M], regardless of them moving schools, going to University, getting a job, whatever. And here’s the scariest part: that’s the most trivial of the implications. There are very very nasty people out there and they prey on our those most vulnerable citizens. Do you suppose 13 year olds think about all this?

I don’t think they do. I’d like to make a difference.

Stepping up

Let me be completely honest with you. From a selfish perspective, I’ve gained a lot from being part of this initiative. It made me stand out at work, helped me develop my soft skills, and meant I got to do some pretty awesome stuff like speak at the House of Commons⁶ and do an online safety workshop with a London 2012 Olympian. My company allows me time out of work to do it, so I don’t lose out in terms of holiday allowance or money.

That’s sure as hell not why I do it, though.⁷

Can a one-hour workshop make a real difference to lives? Who can say for sure: hopefully at least it plants the seed that starts them thinking about what they do online. Certainly the topic keeps cropping up in the news, and I can tell you I’ve never asked someone if they’d like me to do one of my workshops and heard back “no thanks”. More importantly, the kids certainly never look bored. So there’s definitely an appetite for what I’m doing: hopefully that implies it’s useful. My gut feeling is that this matters.

I’m not sure exactly what Maz wanted me to write about beyond “your voluntary school stuff”, but hopefully this is the sort of thing she was after. I haven’t named any organisations (although you will be able to find those names out with the tiniest amount of digging I’m sure), so this isn’t me doing a sales pitch and trying to get more people involved. In fact, I think the initiative is growing pretty well without my intervention. And I also know that not everybody has a passion for this stuff. So what am I doing blabbering at you?

Hopefully, inspiring you a little. It’s tough to make a difference: sometimes it feels like that’s something you can only really do when you’re rich and powerful. But there are certainly ways you can try to make a difference, and hopefully, build up a reputation for yourself at the same time – maybe you can make an even bigger difference later?

At the heart of all this, I’m just determined to be one of the ones who gives back more than he takes. I think that’s the attitude everyone should have. I hope you do too.

Comments? I’m @colinmpowers on Twitter. If you look me up, pretend my profile does not blatantly list the names of the organisations I decided not to name earlier. Cheers.

Notes:
[1] That means “Code Monkey”.
[2] That means “thing”.
[3] I made that example up, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it actually happened and I’ve just forgotten about it.
[4] This one may still be valid today.
[5] Which means they sign up at about age 10.
[6] Only one of the small rooms in it though, not where PMQs happens or anything.
[7] Well. Maybe a little.

—

Thank you for reading Colin’s post and do leave a comment below/get in touch with him if you’d like to learn more. Stay safe on the interwebnets, all.

LGBT+

I don’t know why I suddenly started thinking about this (and asking Twitter about it) today. But I did, and the conversation was quite good, so I wanted to write a post. It’s kind of about labels and acronyms and diversity and inclusivity and other things – choice, importantly. A bit of privilege. All those words that crop up a lot when you move in “liberal” kinds of circles. And like thinking about issues. Also I propose a competition! Read on…

For the uninitiated, if you have no idea what I’m banging on about and need some definitions, I wrote a Background section at the end for you – if you’re open to learning something today, that is.

So, somehow there began a tendency to define some sexualities and gender identities (I find it interesting that the two seem to go hand-in-hand still, despite the increasingly clear message that one need not follow the other) and lump those definitions together in acronyms/initialisms. I don’t profess to know why that happened, but I have some of my own thoughts on a) why people choose to identify with certain labels and b) how that can be useful to them.

Acronyms & Initialisms

I asked Twitter for people’s thoughts on the use of “LGBT” vs. longer versions like “LGBTQQIAA” – lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual and allies – if you’re wondering. Again, skip to the end for more on the details of those labels.

Obviously the longer version is quite unwieldy, perhaps not easily remembered and sends a lot of people into a strange rage because they don’t know what you’re talking about (ask?) or have for some reason turned into an Express reader who’s annoyed about the “PC brigade”. Apparently an option growing in popularity is GSM (gender & sexuality minority).

For me, the lengthier initialism (which could be even longer, actually) proves a point in itself; there are so many types of people (when we’re concentrating on gender identity and sexuality alone) that the use of such categories begins to lose meaning once you open your mind to that fact.

The longer version also introduces the people who do decide to ask to previously unknown concepts. In our conversation yesterday at least 3 people replied asking about the 5 letters at the end. Education is generally the first step in promoting understanding and tolerance, so surely that’s a good thing?

I really enjoyed having the discussion. I think it’s a good way to increase awareness, the capacity for welcoming environments, and helping people to feel comfortable in explaining their own views and stories, with the result of, hopefully, reducing prejudice and discrimination.

For funsies, here are some christian folks freaking out about all these heathens, because it will obviously end up with human-animal partnerships and worse (however, skipping to the end of that post, noting that the writer is an attorney is less amusing).

A competition

Given acronyms tend to work better, being pronouncable words, can you come up with some using some or all the letters? To choose from you could have any or all of the above plus some extra Bs and Gs (bigender, genderqueer/genderfuck etc.), P (pansexual), particles (and, in, for etc.), bits of words (e.g. Bi) and anything else you can justifiably think of.

To kick off, there’s a (fairly well-known?) one that was sent to me by @bishtraining: QUILTBAG.

And that one’s for Queer, Questioning, Unidentified, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender, Bisexual, Asexual, Allied, Gay and Genderqueer.

Gender And Sexual Minority And Noble-minded People In Solidarity and Support: GASMANPISS, simple. – @jonny_boy27

Please post your acronym suggestions (serious or otherwise) and what they stand for in the comments below! Personally I think I’ll stick with LGBT+ for now.

Conversations

I’ll just put some thoughts forward as prompted by people’s tweets from here on, and if you’ve something to add about any of the points, again please do add it in the comments below!

I think it’s more helpful to embrace people as individuals. We won’t have true equality until we stop having to fit an “identity” - @DPWF0

While I agree it’s ideal to just take people for who they are, each separately, it’s also the case that lots of people like to have an identity. We all do, and how we define ourselves comes in different forms. People can and will choose labels for themselves. They could be hobbies, jobs, nationality/ethnicity, religion, sporting allegiances, even disabilities… subscribing to these kinds of cultural communities can offer people support. We often like to share experiences. Birds of a feather.

Martin had some objections to the ever-expanding initialism usage, specifically that it’s chiefly defining a ‘majority’ (cis heterosexuals).

But does such a majority even exist? What is it? Are there really so many 100% cis hetero people around? We both suspect that a lot of people, given a different environment (i.e. one that’s more aware of these issues and tolerant of the spectra involved), would be less inclined to so rigidly pigeonhole themselves into what is traditionally the ‘normal’ category (obviously I strongly object to the use of normal in this kind of discussion).

However, it seems to be quite likely that cis & hetero is at least for now the most common “skin to be in” and we may as well assume so until we have evidence to the contrary. Which perhaps makes the shorter xyz minority initialisms preferable.

Everyone but..?

Perhaps we’re reaching that almost ideal situation where it’s so uncommon to be bigoted about these things that it’s no longer necessary to define as “other”, because having a problem with something you don’t need to have a problem with is actually the most notable characteristic. The ideal situation obviously being a zero-bigotry one.

can that not just be reduced to “everyone but the bigots”… I take some issue with people rejecting labels because “we are all individuals” who have the luxury of rejecting them. – @endless_psych

Absolutely agree with this – it’s good if you say ‘differences are irrelevant to me’ – you are confident in yourself and other people’s choices, you probably treat people well as a result. It’s always nice when people can ‘come out’ to their friends about things and get a mildly surprised (or not) reaction coupled with not caring. It’s nice to know your friends well, and sexuality may or may not be a part of that, but it being unimportant is often a relief, given what some people have to go through.

But not everyone has the luxury of finding differences irrelevant; people facing discrimination, isolation, rejection and hatred have the ‘relevance’ of their difference pointed out to them in horrible ways. Identifying the bigotry, what it’s targeted at and why it’s unacceptable is important.

Activism

It’s all very well saying “we’re all human/people” but not everyone believes human rights are universal, still, and if we’re to continue pushing for their application to everyone, groups who face injustice need to be able to campaign on specific issues. Otherwise nothing would ever change. Having a banner to unite under can help to bring about changes for the better for specific groups, via increasing recognition:

esp if that recognition is bound up with state support and sciences e.g. The #Transdocfail tweets – @drdaveobrien

An article here on what that hashtag revealed, although not news to some.

Invisibility is a problem for minorities that is caused not just by the majority but also other minority groups. I’ve written about bi-erasure coming from the gay/lesbian community previously. By denying someone’s claims about their own identity, you are only serving to support any discrimination they face, and in no way helping their struggle – which may be very similar to your own.

I think one reason for the expansion of the acronym is the inevitable failure of labels… To define a ‘Lesbian and Gay’ society, other groups become more visible by their absence. - @anandamide

Which fits perfectly with an article I read the other day about some universities in the USA and their student groups, from the POV of Stephen, who identifies as queer.

All of this finally led me to reading a bit about “intersectionality“, a word that’s been doing the rounds lately because of certain incidents. Sociology of the day!

Worries

I don’t think I agree with these concerns really, but I see where they’re coming from, and again am interested in others’ views. Regarding the longer initialism:

It’s unwieldy and few will ever know what it means. As EP said, it’s everyone but bigots. I’m sure it has it’s uses somewhere … Just not sure it’s ever going to be useful in combating prejudice in the wider public. - @frozenwarning

I’d go as far as to say that the increasingly complex ‘in-group’ language risks alienating the public… The easier it is to screw up by not knowing the right terms, the less well-meaning people will want to speak. - @mjrobbins

Again, please chip in below.

Some background

When it comes to sexuality, the world is clearly not only populated by heterosexuals (people who are attracted to people who identify as a different gender from themselves), whatever some conservative/religious types would like to believe. There you have your L for lesbian and G for gay – the homosexuals, or people who are attracted to people who identify as the same gender as they do. Most people are now familiar with these labels, and most are fine with it – but not all, there’s still nasty homophobic prejudice floating around.

For your B, the bisexuals; those attracted both to people who identify as the same gender as they do, and to those whose gender identity is different from theirs. A little more complicated, as the inadequacy of the gender binary means this doesn’t have to just include cisgender individuals, it could include trans* peeps too – some may therefore choose to identify as pansexual or omnisexual – though these don’t come into the main initialisms discussed here.

As for the T, that’ll be trans. Generally shortened to trans* now, because there’s a lot more to gender even than is widely thought at the moment. See here, but there’s also plenty of disagreement about it, and this post discusses that. Gender is a simple concept for a lot of people, as that’s how we’re taught, usually, growing up. Man/woman, male/female. But that’s not always adequate. Sometimes people’s bodies don’t match the gender they feel they are, if indeed they choose to acknowledge gender at all – most of us are lucky and things mostly match up, and there’s a term for that: cisgender (or cis for short). For those whose gender identity and physical gender are at odds to some degree, we can say transgender (from the Latin cis- prefix meaning on the same side, and trans- meaning on the opposite side. [Bio]Chemists will be familiar with these).

Moving on, there’s Queer – the old insult that has been reclaimed for people who prefer a less restrictive label but wish to identify with an “atypical” sexuality/gender ID group. Questioning has a variety of definitions; unsure, actively looking for something to settle on, or rejecting available options. Intersex is anyone whose genitalia are ambiguous to whatever degree; neither fully ‘male’ nor ‘female’, which is more common than often thought (unfortunately these people are subject to genital mutilation without their consent, which can have terrible consequences). Asexual is what it says on the tin – it’s perfectly valid for people to be uninterested in sex. This is often derided and pathologised, including by some in the so-called sex positive community, which is irritating.

Allies, finally, being anyone who is willing to fight against discrimination based on any of these things.

Edit: here’s a good video about it from a while back