Monthly Archives: November 2013

[Elsewhere] Making Cryptoparties inclusive

The CryptoParty movement, kicked off by Australian activist @Asher_Wolf over a year ago, intends to help people with any level of technical knowledge acquire useful skills to protect their privacy in the digital world. The 350-page, crowd-sourced handbook includes, among others, sections on browsing the web safely, securing your email, using disk encryption and secure telephony. Explanations progress from the basic (Don’s use personal details in your passwords; make sure no one’s looking over your shoulder when you’re typing in your password) to the rather more advanced instructions for using email encryption on your phone.
Read more over on ORGZine.

[Trigger Warning: Transphobia] Transgender Day of Remembrance

Let me tell you about Sasha. Sasha is 18 and goes to high school in California. When Sasha was born, other people decided Sasha was male. Some time over the last 18 years, Sasha started identifying as agender – neither male nor female. Sasha uses “they” as their gender-neutral pronoun of choice. Sasha’s gender expression varies, and over the last year or so they have occasionally worn skirts. A couple of weeks ago, on November 4th, Sasha was on a bus on their way home. They had fallen asleep. They were wearing a skirt.
Sasha’s skirt was set on fire by a 16-year-old kid. Sasha was hospitalised with second- and third-degree burns and will require several surgeries to recover.
Let me tell you about Jane. Jane Doe (anonymised for safety) is a high school student in Colorado. Jane is transgender. As a young woman, she used the girls’ changing and toilet facilities in her school. Back in October, a so-called Christian organisation claimed that there had been complaints of harassment against Jane made by other girls in her school. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail (later taken down from their website) and Fox News. It turned out that the claims were entirely made up, but not before Jane was subjected to vicious and persistent bullying.
Jane has had to be put on suicide watch as a result of this bullying.
The tragedy here is that Jane and Sasha are the lucky ones. They are not among the 238 people, predominantly non-white, whom we know to have died violent deaths since November 20th 2012 just for the crime of being transgender. Sasha and Jane’s names will – luckily – not be among those read out at gatherings around the world tomorrow commemorating the trans* community’s dead of the last 12 months. Just skimming through the causes of death on the Transgender Day of Remembrance website makes for harrowing reading.
Six gunshots.
Beaten to death with stick.
Stoning.
Multiple stab wounds, tied with a rope to a block of concrete and thrown in pond.
Blugeoned to death with a hammer.
Tied up, beaten with fists and other objects, choked with a chain, had a bag taped over his head, shot, set on fire, and discarded into a dumpster.
As for the 15th year the trans* community mourns, I hope those of us who have the privilege of an identity that matches the gender we were assigned at birth can take a moment to consider what we can do to ease the suffering and to consign to history the need for more and more names to be read out every year on Transgender Day of Remembrance.
Edited to add:
Some amazing trans* voices speaking about this on Twitter last night and today. Here are a few:

And finally, Ariel Silvera, current curator of @TwkLGBTQ, talks about privilege and remembrance:

Some people are bi. You might have to admit it.

Stonewall today have launched a major campaign to combat homophobic language in schools. But with the focus on the word “gay”, it yet again leaves bisexuals on the sidelines.
In fairness to Stonewall, the original stat they shared was for LGB pupils.

Look how quickly the BBC managed to erase bisexuals:

Now, this stat is not technically incorrect. Lesbian and gay pupils are a subset of LGB pupils, and it’s safe to assume (within tolerance) that if 99% of lesbian, gay and bisexual kids hear “gay” used as an insult, then 99% of lesbian and gay kids hear “gay” used and an insult. But where did the bi kids go? Are they not worth mentioning? Or is it easier to throw them under the bus in favour of simplifying the message? After all, no one uses “That’s so bi!” as an insult.
But you know what? Hearing “That’s so bi!” used as an insult would actually be progress for us bisexuals. Because right now, most people don’t even seem to think we exist.
I continue to wait with bated breath for the day when a national self-styled LGB organisation runs a major campaign on bisexual issues. We do, after all, make up over half of the LGB community.
ETA: This post now also appears on BiBloggers.

Dear Joss

Dear Joss,
In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a fan of your writing. I am, mostly, not a fan of your writing because you don’t tell the kinds of stories that I enjoy. And that’s fine – my taste is clearly different to yours, and the world is big enough and full of enough stories for both of us to live happily ever after.
Having said that, for some time now I have been concerned that feminists and queer people in particular seem to hold you and your writing up as exceptional and awesome when it comes to the treatment of female and queer characters. To me, this seems more of a reflection on the dire state of the rest of our popular culture than on your genius. But hey, if kids find in your characters role models that they lack elsewhere, who am I to judge? I misspent part of my youth reading Marion Zimmer Bradley, because she wrote the only fiction I could get my hands on that portrayed people like me.
So despite my friends’ accusations, my dislike of you was generally not ideological. Until, that is, you stood up at an Equality Now event earlier this week and declared that you “hate ‘feminist'”. Words, you said, were important (I agree, they are), and the word “feminist”, you said, was the wrong word to use in the current discourse on gender issues.
Forgive me, Joss, if I call bullshit on a straight, cisgender, white, rich, American man with a platform standing up and telling me what words I should use to describe my lived experience.
“Feminist”, you said, implied that believing that all people are people is something that we are not born with, but indoctrinated into. There was no middle ground, you said, between feminism and sexism. “You either believe women are people, or you don’t”, you said. And that, Joss, is how you betrayed your profound ignorance. I would like to break this to you gently, but I don’t think I can, so let me rip off the band-aid. A substantial proportion of human beings alive today – in fact, quite possibly the majority of human beings alive today – do not believe that women are people. Note that I say “human beings”, not men. One of the greatest tragedies of our time is that we are raising girls to believe that they are not people. The dominant narrative in our society today tells us all, constantly, that women are not people.
It starts with pink and blue Kinder Eggs, and Barbie dolls whose entire purpose in life is to be pretty. It starts with the kinds of stories we tell our kids about what boys do and what girls do. You’re a writer, you should know that stories matter. And yet, the vast majority of our current cultural output barely even recognises that women exist, let alone have feelings or agency that extend beyond finding the meaning of their lives in a man.
It ends in a concerted campaign to drive women out of public spaces and public discourse. Ask any woman whether she’s been the target of street harassment, and I am willing to bet she will say yes. Street harassment is just one way for men to make it clear that they own public spaces, and we are there for their viewing (and groping) pleasure and at their sufferance. Ask any woman who has ever dared express and opinion online how many rape threats she has received for her troubles. Because online spaces are public spaces too, and women are there at the sufferance of men. Ask a room full of women if they have experienced sexual assault, rape, stalking or domestic abuse, and in the UK nearly one in two of them will say yes. Ask the two women killed by a current or former partner every week in the UK whether “misogynist” is too strong a word to use for their deaths.
But you, Joss, dare not ask, and you dare not listen to the answers. Instead, you take to your platform and make witty comments about words, as if this discussion is entirely academic and only for your entertainment; as if we are not, quite literally, talking about women’s very lives; as if your considered opinion as a writer trumps the lived experiences of three and a half billion women. I am sorry Joss, but both your words and your actions speak for themselves. And what they tell me is that you, too, in your heart of hearts, do not quite believe that women are people.
I find it hard to blame you for this, Joss. Like me, like every other human being out there, you are the product of a society that does not believe that women are people. You are right in one thing though: words matter, and conversations with people matter. If you truly want to, in your own words, punch the world up a little, as a member of the most privileged group currently living on this earth, here is your job: learn how to be a great ally. Acknowledge your privilege. Listen, understand, ask the questions, have the conversations. Do no harm! And maybe one day, once you’ve done all of those things, once you’ve learned that women live in a different reality to you – one that is more violent, more painful, and more silenced – you can take to your platform again and use the words that women use to describe their lived experience and boost the signal. But until then, kindly shut up.

[Elsewhere] Just google it!

The fact that the company name has come to mean “search on the internet” can often make us forget about the range of other services Google provides and, in particular, how they make their money. While Google may have started as a search engine – a market where it still holds a 70% global share, Google’s empire has spread well beyond that.
Read more at ORGZine.

QUILTBAG+ 201

Last week, I ran a QUILTBAG+ 101 workshop at an LGBT conference. In all three groups, participants raised a number of interesting questions, some of which I’d like to explore in more detail here.
QUILTwhat? you ask…
“Alphabet soup” is a common criticism of gender and sexual minority communities’ attempts at inclusion. LGBTQIBBQWTF is a much-used spoof of the ever-expanding series of letters used to denote different parts of what is, at best, a loose community formed around shared experiences of oppression and exclusion. Hence QUILTBAG+: It is relatively inclusive, a bit twee but also easy to remember. It is far from perfect. As someone who in some contexts identifies as pansexual, the fact that there’s no P in QUILTBAG does bother me, but that’s what the “+” is for: it stands for a certain openness to identities not explicitly covered in the acronym. It is – I hope – not the acronym to end all acronyms but it’s one of the better ones we have at the moment.
For the 101 of what each letter means and some first steps you can take in being an ally to QUILTBAG+ people, go to QUILTBAG101. No, really, do. It’s an excellent crowd-sourced site with input from across the QUILTBAG+ community and it’ll take you all of 10 minutes to read. I’ll be very surprised if you don’t learn at least one new thing from it, no matter who you are.
Isn’t this an acronym too far?
It’s a common argument. LGBT is short, punchy, established, people know what it stands for. Of course, so was “gay” as an umbrella term, except it mostly meant gay men, and “lesbians and gays” works quite well, doesn’t it now, if it was’t for those pesky bisexuals. I’ve sat in enough meetings trying to decide whether a group or organisation is LGB or LGBT to last me a lifetime.
Here’s the thing: If you’ve been excluded all your life, your default assumption when approaching any new situation or group becomes exclusion. Therefore the responsibilty falls on those with, relatively speaking, more privilege to proactively reach out and include those with less. While being lesbian or gay or bi may not often feel like a privileged position, in many cases it is. It may even be easier to exclude other groups and deliberately pursue assimilationist policies, seeking entry to more privileged groups by emphasising what we have in common with them and rejecting those less privileged than us. It doesn’t take much reflection, however, to realise that this is not a game we can win. It may work out very well for a small number of fortunate individuals but the majority of us are more likely to be the ones thrown under the bus in the process than the ones doing the throwing.
Adding a letter to an acronym is the first step towards giving someone the confidence that your space, your group, your organisation is one that welcomes them. Even if you know absolutely nothing about intersex, or genderqueer, or asexual issues, and don’t know how best to support people with these identities, I would argue this is a step worth taking. People will come forward, they will tell you what their needs are, you will learn from the experience, and the community will be stronger as a result. Of course, some people or groups may not want to be associated with the wider QUILTBAG+ community. That, too, is their prerogative. My strong preference continues to be to err on the side of inclusivity – people can still exclude themselves if they want to.
But surely the issues are all different?
QUILTBAG+ encompasses identities rooted in sexuality (gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, pansexual), gender (trans*, genderqueer), and biological sex (intersex). Of course the political, legal, social and economic issues different parts of the community face vary hugely. Where, as Stonewall keep pointing out, the legal fight for equality for lesbians and gay men in the UK has been won with the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, for intersex people it has barely begun, and other parts of the QUILTBAG+ community are at different stages of that legal journey.
There is, however, a very significant overlap on many issues, and we ignore that at our own peril. Let me give you some examples. Prior to the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, transgender people who were married or in a civil partnership had to obtain a divorce or dissolution, respectively, before they could get legal recognition of their gender. This is because marriage and civil partnership as institutions and legal constructs were defined based on the genders of the parties involved, and one party transitioning to a gender different to the one the law recognised them as did not fit within those definitions. As civil partnerships continue to only be available to same-gender couples, this continues to be an issue for some trans* people and their families even after legal equality for cisgender people in same-gender relationships has been achieved. To make matters worse, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act introduced a spousal veto for married trans* people seeking to transition.
Another example: Germany has recently introduced a legally recognised indeterminate gender, to be used for babies born intersex. In many ways this is great progress for the intersex community who continue to struggle against medical practices seeking to assign them physical characteristics of one sex or the other at a very young age, which can lead, among other things, to sterilisation. The removal of the legal obligation to assign a sex to a newborn can relieve some of the pressure on parents to agree to such surgery. This innovation in German law, however, comes without a wider review of legislation based on sex and gender. Marriage and civil partnership in Germany continue to be defined based on the legal gender of the partners, and so the rights of people who are legally recognised as of indeterminate gender with regards to these institutions are currently unclear. Comprehensive legal reform will be required over the next few years to deal with this, and that is highly likely to have side effects – intended or otherwise – for other parts of the QUILTBAG+ community.
We need to recognise that gender, bological sex, and sexuality are firmly linked in our culture, society and politics. A lot of negative attitudes towards all parts of the QUILTBAG+ community have their roots in the gender binary, and in deep-seated beliefs about gender roles and the respective value of people of different genders. Challenging these is no easy task, and we will continue to experience backlash as we poke and prod at what it means to be male or female, at whom we can love and how. Where the interests of different parts of the QUILTBAG+ community overlap we need to speak with one, strong voice. Where they do not, we need to be aware of the unforeseen consequences we still may cause for each other, and ensure we do not, accidentally or otherwise, throw parts of the community under the bus. The only way to achieve that is by forming inclusive communities, listening to each other, and remembering that we are both all different and all human.
There are so many identities I’d never heard of before! How do I make sure I don’t get it wrong and offend people?
Listen and seek to understand. Ask questions respectfully and accept that people are under no obligation to answer. Share your experiences, your needs, and your fears. Be human. For more ideas, see QUILTBAG101 and this post I wrote a while ago on being an ally.