Invisible Lives

It’s a skeptics in the pub write-up!

In case you missed it, I luckily made it to Westminster Skeptics to see Juliet Jacques give her talk,

Thinking critically about transgender issues

and you can listen to it on the Pod Delusion but I shall write up my notes for those who prefer to read!

Firstly Belinda Brooks-Gordon introduced the talk by saying that trans rights have not really moved forward along with women’s rights. To try to highlight this and educate people, Juliet has a Guardian blog where she posts regularly about trans issues.

Now we can hear what Juliet has to say – it’s a lot of stuff, hugely informative, and it was a great talk!

I’ve put in a few thoughts of my own with [Comment: ...] along the way.

—

“Transgender” is almost deliberately a loose term. There is no commitment to a transsexual (TS)/transvestite (TV) distinction; the two not being the same thing, in case you’ve never thought about it before.

It turned up in late 1960s United States literature and became popular in the 1990s as an umbrella term for gender non-conformity and gender-variant identities.

Terms such as male/female (referring to bodies) were challenged by transgender communities.

A Whistle-Stop Tour of Trans History

Gay/lesbian histories and identities are far better explored (also bisexual but to a lesser extent) and it is much easier to define these terms.

In the Victorian era, modern industrial cities like London were giving people the chance to cut themselves off from their families and old friends, to reinvent themselves and be isolated from their past.

Thus, LGBT identities became possible.

However, men who dressed as women in public were arrested and sent to court. The Met, from 1829 onwards, accused the offenders of being ‘sodomites’; Victorian authorities associated cross-dressing or, officially, ‘men in female attire’, with homosexuality.

[Comment: at this point I'm reminded of one of my favourite comedians. Now, it might piss some people off that I bring it up, but having had close family dismiss him for his transvestism when I was quite a lot younger, since then I've felt uncomfortable when people poke fun.]

Men would often try to have the charges dropped using a defence of humour; “it was just a lark”. They dismissed their actions in this way to avoid prison.

In 1870 two men were often seen out and about as women. The mainstream press showed photos of them and they were well-known in London theatre. One was also associated with the aristocracy. They were charged with committing an “unnatural offence” and were subjected to examinations trying to prove they had engaged in anal sex. This (unsurprisingly?) failed and new charges were brought:

“Conspiring to incite others to commit an unnatural offence”

There was no frame of reference. Law and the media were reacting to events, creating legislation. The prosecution tried to prove cross-dressing was innate in order to suggest that sodomy had occurred.

There was the basic assumption that these people were deliberately trying to deceive men into having sex with them, by pretending to be women.

Obviously everyone’s lives revolve around heterosexual male perceptions!!

Women were also not accorded sexual agency; feminine sexuality was also suppressed.

[Comment: it was in the Victorian era that genital mutilation really took hold culturally; sex was something to be ashamed of and dampened, for both men and women. Circumcision was touted as a cure for boys' masturbation 'problems' and female circumcision became popular to suppress female sexual desires and 'hysteria']

A new defence was then brought: that they’re actors! Actors continuing their roles outside of the workplace. Male-female cross-dressing was a long tradition particularly in English theatre so there was an assumption of performance associated with it, and that London was a City of vice.

The judge did not like the police; he felt they had violated the men’s human rights with their invasive ‘questioning’. Public support increased due to this mistreatment.

In 1885 an amendment to criminal law was made: 2 years in prison for male-on-male sexual acts (which ensnared Oscar Wilde and he was sent down under this law).

Germany’s Paragraph 175 outlawed homosexual behaviour. After this, sexology developed, in order to classify and understand human sexual behaviours.

The medicalisation and pathologising of ‘conditions’ such as homosexuality and transgender/gender-queer identities then began.

Medicine and Media

In 1909-1910 Havelock Ellis published a book called The Erotic Drive to Cross-Dress.

Language is always evolving but there was little to describe transgender behaviour. Transvestite was coined as a broad term then, but is obviously more specific now; referring only to the act of wearing clothes traditionally thought of as being suitable for the opposite sex.

During World War I, Edwardian British and German sexologists were less active. There was still no separation of maleness vs. masculinity or femaleness vs. femininity.

In 1928 The Well of Loneliness was published, one of the first accounts from female perspectives.

The Institute of Sexual Science was founded in 1919 and pioneered sex reassignment surgery. A Danish painter, Lili Elbe, died after attempted ovary and uterus transplantations (Niels Hoyer wrote an account of her life, Man Into Woman). In 1933, the National Socialist Party closed the Institute down and people photographed the book burnings that took place.

These events caused the study and understanding of gender issues to be significantly held back.

Gender verification in sport also became an issue, resulting from people’s suspicions and prejudices, particularly those of Avery Brundage. Examinations to determine (mainly female) competitors’ sex were introduced with the intention of identifying people with an ‘unfair advantage’ – i.e. those born physically male but living as women.

In 1945 the first female-male sex reassignment surgery was performed on Laurence Michael Dillon who later wrote his own book, partly inspired by The Well of Loneliness.

Male-to-female transitions drew attention. A TV/TS schism formed, and also between TS and Gay/lesbian – the latter emphatically not desiring of surgery.

Then the first male-female transsexual was a friend of Dillon, in the early 50s; Roberta Cowell, an ex-pilot and racing driver. Her transition was serialised by the then equivalent of OK/Hello! magazine.

The front page of the New York Times featured Christine Jorgensen, a former US army conscript, in 1952. Her doctor, the sexologist Harry Benjamin, emigrated to the States during WWI. He worked on medicine for TG people, and with those who believed in pathologisation of the ‘condition’. He was closely involved in the development of phychological assessment and requirements for patients to follow ‘paths‘ to get the treatments they wanted.

The medical establishment was in control; unreasonable demands of femininity were made of M-F trans people (F-M were somewhat invisible – people assumed that women did this for practical reasons, to assume more powerful and respected roles in society); antiquated ideas of femininity were forced on people.

In ’66 Benjamin’s book The Transsexual Phenomenon was published, which detailed types of TS e.g. ‘Type 4′ – those with no desire to undergo surgery. These were all ideas articulated by non-trans people.

TS people became aware of the book. People understood the boxes to tick to get what you want - answering the questions posed ‘correctly’!

In 1960, April Ashley had surgery in Morocco. She had been married to Lord Corbett. He took her to court for divorce and the ruling was that she should still be considered male, so the marriage was void and there was to be no settlement. This set a legal precedent in the UK – that TS people’s sex is defined by what is printed on their birth certificate.

In the 60s, transitions and who could afford them were strictly controlled. ‘Sects’ emerged, for example in San Francisco. Sex workers funded their surgery. Police often harassed and blackmailed them in Compton’s Cafeteria, eventually causing them to fight back and a documentary film was made covering it.  Later the New York Stonewall Inn bar, rented by the LGBT community, was scene to more famous riots, where Sylvia Rivera stood up to police oppression. This led to the modern movement of Stonewall as the gay liberation front (gay in this context being queer & non-conforming identities).

People became more vocal about trans not being equal to gay and vice versa. Many were trying to integrate with ‘respectable’ hetero society. It became a cliché in the press; “I was born into the wrong body” – people started to think it was a new idea.

—

Lesbian and feminist groups became prominent in the 1970s. These were women-only spaces; M-F transitionists, did they fit in at all? Sport was also a bi-gender separated space. Trans decisions (and often requirements) to conform to patriarchal ideas of femininity annoyed some feminists.

Janice Raymond wrote ‘The Transsexual Empire: the making of the modern she-male’ and other anti-trans feminist literature, very aggressive in its content.

She managed to suggest that TS women were worse than rapists, that the appropriation of female bodies “becomes a total rape” (!). [Comment: hovering dangerously close to a no true Scotsman, I feel that 'feminists' being so obviously prejudiced against gender non-conformity would run against the very core of feminism itself, but maybe that's just my view of it.]

She claimed [comment: epic invocation of Godwin's law here] that TS technology was perfected in concentration camps, but there is no evidence for this. She interviewed 12 TS women (TS men didn’t fit; they were mainly dismissed as butch lesbians). This was prominent in the media.

Carol Riddell addressed Raymond’s comments in 1980. Sandy Stone also responded with The empire strikes back: a post-transsexual manifesto.

—

The Victorian persecution of cross-dressers made trans people invisible. Clinicians were free to frame the experience in a light designed by them alone, to propagate stereotypes, create legislation and silence trans people.

The mainstream media/trans schism developed as trans people were not used in film, TV etc. – the experiences presented were not framed by trans people themselves.

Authors stepped forward to promote the anti-transphobia cause, including: Jan Morris (Conundrum: An Extraordinary Narrative of Transsexualism, 1987); Kate Bornstein (Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women And The Rest Of Us, 1994); Leslie Feinberg (Transgender Liberation: A Movement Whose Time Has Come, 1992); and Viviane Namastie (Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People, 2001).

The organisation Press for Change was established in 1992 and finally the UK government passed a bill to create the Gender Recognition Act in 2004.

Today

Trans identities have some constitution now. The meanings of words for ‘Gender-queer’ individuals (TS, TV, TG etc.) are still evolving. We are experimenting with the language. The challenge is tackling transphobia and in a sense this is following on from the gay liberation movement. Homophobic violence is still often based on gender expression and identity.

Fear of unknown and unusual drives people’s prejudices. This is often reinforced in the media, a prominent example being Psycho; in which Norman Bates fits the ‘all crossdressers are crazy!’ stereotype. [Comment: I'm reminded again of Mr. Izzard's distinction between TV people in general and the "fuckin' weirdo transvestite!"]

Work is ongoing to close the gap between the mainstream media, trans people and how articles are produced. Also questioning the usefulness of bracketing TG with mental illness; at the moment it is still in the DSM of mental disorders. Perhaps we can overturn the idea that TS is a mental health issue. TS people do have a fear of ‘coming out’ so to do so may help.

In tackling transphobia there is a need for good language use and critical thinking on these issues.

Questions

Q. The ‘Real life experience’ requirement – no scientific basis to it; just tradition?? Good reasons for it potentially being harmful. Barrier and ritual humiliation. People coming to harm via the ‘Hormonal black market’ – e.g. oestrogen without prescription.

A. Especially in Britain. The Trans pathway is structured by the NHS’ fear of being sued; transition and regret. Public money and anxiety over its use! People often suggest decommissioning of gender reassignment to save money (approx 70% comments on Guardian!).

Need for some gatekeeping. If there’s no test; it’s an irreversible surgery. Russell Reed: hormones as diagnostic tool (effects are reversible) – one can stop and revert.

Bit of an endurance test. Street hassle, everyday things become an ordeal. Some programmes do away with the psychiatry element. Difficult – more flexibility? Equality? They were allowed x time… cut-off points?

Increased acceptance – more people – pressure from the right to not spend money?

—

Q. Language. LGBT(Q) bit awkward? Internal disagreements – your view?

A. Ever-expanding acronyms. LGBTQQI (lesbian, gay, bi, trans, queer, questioning, intersex) – a way around?

Umbrella term. But PC & this are kind of concurrent. Press fatigue with ‘PC’. Introduction of new words isn’t really tolerated now cf. 70s/80s.

“PC” is now pejorative. Causes some friction? Sexuality =/= gender identity. The state didn’t separate these.

How do to this but keep an ‘alliance’? Tend to occupy the ‘same spaces’. Contesting rights (Belinda BG). Trans & bi rights trampled! Medicine/sci/law intersection and research is behind –> guesswork policies.

—

Q. Liz D. Popular culture e.g. Coronation St. (did it badly?) M-F trans people e.g. in Little Britain – offensive?

A. C St. Hayley. History of trans people not given a direct voice/part. Spurred dialogue and was sympathetic to the issue.

Dana international won eurovision; informing people that TG different from L/G etc. “City of Lost Souls” TS singer in lead roll. Autobiography “Man Enough to be a Woman”. Warhol, punk etc.

Tara O’Hara character. Argument on need for surgery and ‘womanhood’.

Little Britain:  trans women as comedy. Trans men ignored; men who want to be female/feminine are funny whereas if women want to be men it’s practical. Merton & co. should be more careful with jokes.

You don’t always know how your creation will be perceived eg.. Al Murray pub landlord! Taking the piss out of people but then they adopt it; uncritical identification and missing the point.

 

Stereotypes often have a basis. Not being critical of them, historical context needed. The LB catchphrase “I’m a lady!“  is now shouted at people; people aren’t aware of transphobia.

—

Q. Pronouns. He/she/it ?? Queer has pejorative connotations (depends on who it’s from) – are you happy with the bifurcation?

A. Personally, yes. Have there been attempts to create new terms for people who don’t fit M/F and or don’t want – outside the binary; se/hir.

If you’re not sure, ask! Give the right of ID to the person rather than imposing your definition, but if you can’t…

e.g. Sonia/David Burgess and tube incident. Press coverage was awful.

—

Transmedia watch. Work with media creators; gap in education. Social innovation camp; trans techies, media, journos/broadcasters – contact us @transmediaact @transmediawatch

—

Q. A utopia where law does not interfere with people and their gender? Legal M-F/F-M transitions.

A. There was; they just existed. Legislation and pathologisation led to project to re-normalise.

—

Q. Change of language ?? To reflect diversity of trans group?

A. Complicated! TG is useful for many. Weird stereotypes around TV e.g. otherwise successful men putting wife’s undies on at home.

Trans cf. privacy issues. Often that history is irrelevant and incidental.

—

Q.  Is the goal to erase negative or balance negative with positive?

A. Balance. People will share strong negative opinions inevitably.

—

Q. 1. is use of ‘proper’ pronouns a barometer for accpetance? 2. Maybe human minds are wired to categorise things. 3. Sexuality =/= gender… do you think it might be useful to dissociate completely from LG(B)?

A. 3. Trans people have sexuality; B or G or L… L&G esp have fixed gender associations and so are inadequate to deal with trans. Hence, LGBTQ(I) more relevant.

BBG: Stonewall etc. have resources and can often help.

1. Principle: right to self-determination. Choose your own pronouns (cf. ms?) Changing beauty standards related.

—

Q. Scientific studies e.g. on brains etc. If there is a ‘trans test’, is it good or potentially harmful?

A. It would change dealing with transsexuality.

—

Q. Ignorance. People are unaware of the issues; do trans people need to ‘get real’ and understand that people generally have no knowledge of these things?

A. Panic about making mistakes can increase their frequency; allay people’s fears – better for all – some trans responsibility here.

—

LGBTQQ… we’re all beaten up by the same people!

—

A call was made for a Corrie/LB blogpost.

Also: David Walliams played ‘Vulva’ in Spaced; when wearing some make-up after filming and walking through a park – he was verbally abused and stones thrown – he wrote about it and was apparently amused by this?!

—

Also listen to the Pod Delusion report by Liz in Episode 107! Transgender and the Media (41:00) ft. Nathalie McDermott

Interacting on the Interweb

The latest furore surrounding the ‘potentially damaging’ nature of things like Facebook and Twitter is in swing, with the Daily Mail (safe to click! Minus images) interpreting a scientist’s views as social networking turning your kids’ brains to mush. Note that Martin does of course disagree – as do I.

Sciencepunk has taken the time to speak to Susan Greenfield herself to try to get a clearer idea of exactly what her concerns and suggested solutions might be, under all the media distortion and so on. He’s written up the interview for New Scientist. I take up her invitation to join the debate.

Unfortunately, listening to her speak I still find myself vehemently disagreeing with most of what she says for various reasons, including the fact that she clearly has very little or no personal experience of what she talks about, is missing some key issues and appears to wilfully ignore positive outcomes in favour of potentially negative ones.

That’s not very scientific!

So, let’s get ranty.

Context is everything

First I recall a comedy sketch (apologies for forgetting whose, do say if you know!) based on the occasions when Facebook is suddenly down/unavailable, in which the bereft individual wanders the streets shoving photographs in people’s faces and shouting “DO YOU LIKE THIS??”.

I laughed, because it’s absurd, we don’t do that… but hang on! We kind of do. I quite often show people pictures I’ve taken, be it on my camera, my phone, downloaded to my computer or even (omg old!) albums with pictures on actual photo paper!

Important to remember is that we behave differently in some situations compared to others; it’s a ridiculous fear that online behaviour is going to replace offline behaviour. They’re different things that don’t translate. Just as you don’t put your feet up on the table in a meeting vs. in the lounge, or take your shirt off and sit on your friend’s shoulders at a posh indoor concert at a swanky theatre.

We like to share our experiences with our friends, and sometimes if we’re a bit more serious about photography, get people’s input on our creative endeavours. That’s not a fault, it’s perfectly normal behaviour and taking feedback/constructive criticism/praise onboard is a good way to improve ourselves if that’s the goal.

Small-talk, seeking approval and helpful suggestions, presenting an image of ourselves – this is what we do in life, not just online. Does she also have a problem with in-person small-talk? Should we only ever be having super-meaningful conversations?

Sorry, but after our lab meeting we like to go and have lunch, talk about the weather, take the piss out of each other and show holiday photos, for example. We don’t spend all day talking about work or the latest world crisis; that would be draining and rather unhealthy, I’m sure most would agree.

In the same way, not all of my tweets or facebook status updates are serious. I share articles, I have a moan about things, we’ll have some discussions. But other times I’ll be swearing about a minor injury, taking a photo of the mouthwatering foods/lovely scenery I see before me or friends/pets making tits of themselves. Because life is a mixture of these things and if it weren’t, it’d be bloody boring.

Greenfield seems to want to make a connection between things like increasing autism rate and internet use. I’m pretty sure it’s well-accepted that the ‘increase’ in rates of conditions like this is due to better diagnosis and a clearer definition of what the condition actually is – these are recent things. There’s no good evidence (that I know of) to suggest the perceived increase is due to vaccines or playing on computers or anything else (edit: Jon Brock says it is indeed demonstrably false); it’s likely always been there, we’re just picking up on it better now. Which is good, because it means more people get the help and support that they need.

Also there’s been a ‘shocking rise in things like happy-slapping’?? Well of course there has, because again this term applies to a phenomenon that’s only been able to exist since mobile phones got video cameras. That does not mean that people didn’t go around beating other people up for fun and to show off to their friends before this era. Sadly I know this from personal experience as I’m sure many do, but good for her if she’s never had to deal with such things.

I do not believe for a second that these kind of people only exist because the internets have created them, by eroding their empathy circuits. There have always been nasty ****s and there always will be, sadly. Don’t blame the internet, or video games, or whatever the latest demon-you-don’t-get is.

When pressed for evidence, instead of offering some, she instead asks if we want to wait and see what kind of evidence emerges? *Ominous sound effect* – That is not an answer, it’s just silly scaremongering. She’s even placing weight in parental concerns, on anecdotes.

Parents will always be concerned about what their kids are up to, it’s the generation gap – every generation is both very different from (in terms of technology in particular) and the same as (regarding concerns, ‘we never did such things!’ ‘you whipper-snappers without any respect’! etc.) the previous ones. Again this is nothing new. To me it just sounds like she’s scared of change and using popular fears as an excuse to criticise.

It’s not so much the technologies in and of themselves that I’m criticising but how they’re used

Nail on the head. If your kid is spending 6 hours straight in front of the TV, damn well turn it off. Go for a walk. You can’t blame Nintendo for the people who spend their lives with the console running, you can’t blame Google for someone staying up until 5am looking at random websites. Discipline your kids and yourself and these things are like any other activity – perfectly healthy in reasonable amounts. Also if my child wanted to hug people for 6 hours, I’d be concerned at the level of clinginess they’d somehow developed.

Hi Ho Silver Lining

What gets me in a real rage about these attacks on social media, the internets and so forth, is that people (especially people who don’t even use it themselves, infuriatingly) are so very quick to not even bother considering the positive outcomes.

I’ve made similar points in the past but I’ll do so again ‘cos I can.

Some people aren’t comfortable in social situations. If you’re so concerned about the people on the austism spectrum, take a bit of time to learn what it is they struggle with, and what helps them. Even for those of us without personal experience of such things, sometimes we all have those days when we’d just rather not have to put on a smiley face and be around people.

For some, that’s more the default setting. That’s not because interaction with other people is completely off-putting, but sometimes the trappings that come with getting together ‘irl’ are just too much. If people are put off by the poking, liking and kind of sharing that happens on FB/Twitter then take a step back and look at what we do offline.

How should I dress? What should I say? What is the tone of my voice conveying? Is this rude? Will I upset them if I say that? What should I do in this situation? Do I have to smile now? Is eye contact creepy? No, if I look away, that’s impolite. Wait, I’m staring. Oh she thinks I’m a complete weirdo. I need to buy the next round? What are they laughing at?

Et cetera. You might not have ever thought these things, but many do, and social interaction can be a stressful experience – think of a time you just wanted to go home to the TV/a book/bed.

But most of us want to talk with people and share bits of our lives. If the above is a regular issue then the internet is an absolute godsend. Again I’m not going to waffle on about my personal reasons for thinking this but would encourage those who are scared of online things ‘replacing real life interaction’ to just stop and reconsider. Maybe, just maybe, the internet is actually a very fulfilling and stimulating environment that does give people a sense of identity and belonging in plenty of cases.

Of course, writing this on a blog isn’t the best way of conveying such a message, I know. So don’t whine at me about that!!

The wealth of information online, both factual things to learn and giving better access to ‘real life’ events and so on, it’s a huge resource that helps people immensely. Liaise with friends, make new ones, find a place to stay at short notice… the list is extensive.

People seem so hell-bent on discovering how damaging the interwebnets are for our brains, they don’t seem to be bothered about the good it’s doing. This happens with every technological leap, like television as she mentions herself; will it replace books?! No, of course not.

If you think Twitter is all people saying what they had for breakfast, I don’t want to talk to you about it. Either give it a try or listen to the people who explain it really isn’t, at least try to get a better idea, or shut up. Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it, as they say.

If you only update your facebook page to broadcast your personal life then don’t complain it’s all about gossip and invasion of privacy. These experiences are user-driven, they are what we make them, and if I see more of this pointless demonising, I will shout louder.

My friends, whom I cannot refer to as ‘online’ or ‘offline’ because they are largely both (except when there are huge oceans in the way), have kept me afloat when I’ve been too upset to talk on the phone, too much of a mess to leave the house or present myself to people face-to-face.

Thank FSM for the internet because without it… well, imagine! Where would I get to see parrots dancing to horrible pop songs hilariously or cats in all manner of sickeningly cute predicaments. Or indeed hear first-hand accounts from countries descending into civil war, or kids getting beaten by police at legal protests.

Life is not simple, nor is our virtual world. Embrace it/keep your distance, whatever. But don’t be so quick to demonise what you have not even tried to understand or see good within.

That’s the remit of rags like the one that published the silly, distorted story in the first place.

—

I’m not going to go into the video games criticism much; saying that actions don’t have consequences and this could affect how people think is just another I’ve-never-played-them sourced view, in my opinion, and I’ve had rants about all that before as well.

Edit: more people are irritated!

Dorothy Bishop has written an open letter to Greenfield regarding her comments. Edit (2): having received much support and thanks for her letter, one academic chooses to challenge her position. If you want to see how scientists fight, take a look.

Martin has a more serious piece addressing Greenfield’s somewhat shaky claim that she has never linked autism to internet use, following more high-profile individuals losing their rag with her, including Carl Zimmer – documenting the rise of the most amusing #greenfieldism hashtag.

It’s even made it to the Wall Street Journal!

Breaking!! Susan Greenfield causes autism!

16/8/11: More recently, Andrew Maynard (my fellow I’m a Scientist! 2010 contestant) has published an excellent analysis of Greenfield’s latest outing, which came in the form of a video statement published on the Guardian website.

Cogito ergo sum

These are (finally) my recollections of Westminster Skeptics, 7/6/10.

Biometrics and Identification

Belle de Jour (Dr. Brooke Magnanti) came to speak to us and was welcomed warmly.

Brooke is a scientist and supported herself during her doctoral research by becoming a sex worker in London. She documented her experiences anonymously then revealed her true identity in 2009. Obviously people tend to be surprised to hear that a scientist worked as a prostitute, but challenging such attitudes was (I assume) one of her aims.

She came to WSitP to talk not about those adventures but about the science, psychology and challenges of personal identification.

Human Identification in Forensic Science

We have a desire for authenticity, yet want privacy for ourselves – we protest ID cards and CCTV, put up net curtains in our houses – but gossip magazines fly off the shelves (though I wish they didn’t) and rumour mills never fail to be on overdrive.

Why do we want to know about others? That information is often irrelevant; trivial, social things. Here we’re talking the government and personal info.

Identity is how we define ourselves.

‘Unique’ identifiers have been used for a long time. The Bertillon system used a number of them to keep track of who’d been in prison. However, one case destroyed its perceived reliability.

Kansas jailed Will West (a murderer) but in 1903 one William West was sentenced; they looked almost exactly the same and indeed their Bertillon measurements differed only minutely. This discredited the system as it was and led to the use of fingerprinting.

How unique?

So how many people were compared to establish that fingerprints are unique to every individual?

130!

There have been attempts to write image analysis software but computer error makes it unacceptable in court. So it’s down to people, but human fallibility is ever-present.

“Why worry if you have nothing to hide?”

Sometimes innocent people get caught out by imperfect systems (Brooke gives Shirley McKie as an example). Innocent until proven guilty is (or is meant to be) the foundation of the legal system – we ought to be aware of ID measures in place, the possibilities of wrongful accusation and what to do about it.

British citizens don’t need to carry ID cards but everyone else does. Yet no card-readers actually operate in this country. The card contains data from passport, visa, fingerprints. The Government has vowed to scrap ID cards but what about all the information already on file?

Brooke managed to lose everything in her card application (at a bus stop!) – all she had to do to prove her identity was to go to the US embassy with another US citizen vouching for her. So the cards seem fairly pointless, all in all.

What about DNA?

The National DNA Database does not store all 3 billion base pairs (‘letters’) of individual genomes. You can’t store the full sequence; it’s too expensive, time-consuming and generally unacceptable. It’s an issue of privacy.

We don’t want the government knowing more about ourselves than we do.

Instead it uses 20 ‘short tandem repeats’ – relatively small lengths of DNA that are made up of repeat sequences that vary from person to person.

How acceptable is biometrics?

There is no perfect system. Considerations include:

Universality (can it be applied to everyone?)

Uniqueness

Permanence (can it change with time? E.g. retinal scans)

Collectability (how easy is it to access and record?)

Performance (how reproducible?)

Acceptability (likelihood of consent)

Circumvention (ease of avoidance e.g. US embassy incident)

We identify ourselves in broad terms. Race is not an official biological category but we still use it! Still people are assuming that populations don’t and can’t mix. We know there’s more intra -than inter-race variation. It’s scientific fact.

People have moved on to the more ‘PC’ term “ethnicity” but this also suffers from social stereotyping.

ID is currently dependent on what people believe

Me 'n' Jorge Cham, creator of PhD comics!

Brooke showed one of her favourite PhD comics – comparing some common perceptions of science to the unfortunate reality! Time to drop in another me-and-someone-cool photo methinks…

privacy.com

Online, people actually tend to be truthful (despite the oft-excessive scaremongering regarding the interwebnet). People still seek trust and authenticity – just the same as irl (in real life, for those who may not know)!

Are our current problems and fears simply ‘growing pains’ like the printing press experienced – like every other technological development?

The web is the first multi-directional medium. We talk back.

I’ve made this point before, regarding Christina Odone’s indignation at people calling her out on her BS.

Personae for Sale

Where there are personal data, there’s business to be had. Tweets/facebook profiles and data for sale – advertising companies have a wealth of information available to them now.

Are we the summation of our entire history? Or do we take each moment as it comes? Is it possible to do that and still be sociable?

On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog!

Questions

Did anyone realise you were American? Revealing where you learn English

A/ I asked an English friend how to say things. People move; is where you are more important than where you were?

Do we know the maths on DNA ID?  We’ve gone from 16 reference points to 20 now. What’s the chance of a false positive match?

A/ No one’s bothere to check?

Audience: There are estimates! 1:several thousand (that’s really quite high!). Lots of confusion, probably no better than fingerprints.

Martin Robbins: Why come back to science?

A/ Between submitting my thesis and the viva, I needed cash! If I’d wanted to be a writer I’d have wanted to be  like Simon Singh.

What’s the usefulness of DNA fingerprints in court? How are lawyers defending it?

A/ I’m not a criminal lawyer! Statistical assumptions –> invalid model; they’re certifying people to appear as experts on ID in court.

Do you think we should give up? What’s the message?

A/ Confusion! Science, epidemiology, availability of records (histories) – People should think about it more.

Science isn’t necessarily about the results, it’s more about the process

[My boss (and all supervisors, in fact) certainly wouldn't agree with that!]

Evan Harris: Prosecutors often use fallacious stats

1/1,000,000,000 chance of a match does not equal 999,999:1 guilty odds

Fallibility impacts on the ethics of a database; even if the whole DNA sequence was there, epigenetics brings another level of complexity. [This is the modifications to the basic DNA code that also contain information and can affect our phenotypes - physical manifestations of genetic instructions.]

The example of imprinting disorders was given, specifically Prader-Willi and its maternal equivalent Angelman syndrome (which Brooke could not remember and asked the audience, but when I finally remembered and shouted it out, did not shout loud enough! Oh well. I haven’t forgotten *everything* from uni… it’s in there somewhere).

Brooke asked: how many have at some point fabricated their ID online? Barely any hands went up.

You can’t really stray from what you are

[Here I think of Big Brother and how long people can really keep up some act in front of the cameras before they're forced to forget it and start being themselves].

How big a problem is DNA contamination?

A/ It’s CSI fiction! I would like to think that people working on a case know what they’re doing (i.e. actually tying their hair up).

What do we have in common with our childhood selves??

A/ Good question; genetics vs. personality, nature/nurture etc. Can we quantify personality (religions, philosophy)?

Is Biometrics related to defense? Is it the fastest-growing industry?

A/ It’s well-funded. Pharma growing fast though. Popularity of crap TV contributes!

——–

Also in attendence were some high-profile ‘bad law’ victims:

- Paul Chambers, who was prosecuted for jokingly tweeting that he’d blow up the airport if it didn’t re-open (thus preventing him from visiting his girlfriend). His experience is now infamously known as the Twitter Bomb Hoax Trial.

- Harvey Singh, who has endured a two year libel case brought by a ‘Saint’, who has never even been to the UK.

- Dave Osler, who was sued for writing a blogpost.

You can listen to the full talk here on the PodDelusion! Brooke has also made the slides available here.