Today, students drowned out a small anti-transgender demonstration that took place mere steps from UBC’s Pride installation outside the Nest.
Two individuals not affiliated with UBC came to campus this afternoon with materials denying the existence of transgender people, while stressing conservative Christian values.
“I’m protesting censorship on university campuses and human rights commissions, and the imposition of transgender ideology and the inability to be able to freely speak out on this topic, as evidenced by some of the responses,” said Bill Whatcott, a demonstrator and well-known anti-LGBT activist.
This is not the first time Whatcott has hosted an anti-LGBT demonstration on university campuses, having appeared at the University of Calgary and theUniversity of Regina in 2016.
Around a dozen UBC students responded by chanting “trans rights are human rights” and “trans bodies are safe here.” Some carried large Pride flags to block the demonstration from view.
> The college I attended was small and very LGBT friendly. One day someone came to visit and used the word “gay” as a pejorative, as was common in the early 2000s. A current student looked at the visitor and flatly said, “we don’t do that here.” The guest started getting defensive and explaining that they weren’t homophobic and didn’t mean anything by it. The student replied, “I’m sure that’s true, but all you need to know is we don’t do that here.” The interaction ended at that point, and everyone moved on to different topics. “We don’t do that here” was a polite but firm way to educate the newcomer about our culture. […]
> It turns out talking about diversity, inclusion, and even just basic civil behavior can be controversial in technical spaces. I don’t think it should be, but I don’t get to make the rules. When I’m able I’d much rather spend the time to educate someone about diversity and inclusion issues and see if I can change how they see the world a bit. But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated.
> This is when I pull out “we don’t do that here.” It is a conversation ender. If you are the newcomer and someone who has been around a long time says “we don’t do that here”, it is hard to argue. This sentence doesn’t push my morality on anyone. If they want to do whatever it is elsewhere, I’m not telling them not to. I’m just cluing them into the local culture and values. If I deliver this sentence well it carries no more emotional weight than saying, “in Japan, people drive on the left.” “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals.
> Me: “You are standing in that person’s personal space. We don’t do that here.”
> Them: “But I was trying to be nice.”
> Me: “Awesome, but we don’t stand so close to people here.”
> Them: Tells an off-color joke.
> Me: “We don’t do that here.”
> Them: “But I was trying to be funny.”
> Me (shrugging): “That isn’t relevant. We don’t do that here.”
I really really do want to endorse this. Making a person’s behavior about capital-M Morality is a great way to get people to dig in their feet and escalate situations. By going “Hey, that behavior doesn’t fit in this context.” it removes a ton of the resentment and toxicity on both sides of the interaction.
Title: The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People: 2.8-2.11: Avoiding Invalidating Language Traps
Speech bubbles contrast the following phrases under the headings “Invalidating language” versus “Validating language”: “Women and trans women” versus “Cis and trans women”; “Students who consider themselves ‘non-binary’” versus “Non-binary students”; “Zed, who identifies as agender” versus “Zed is agender”; “her secret was exposed” versus “her history was publicized”; “closeted,” “stealth,” and “passes” versus “private” and “nondisclosure”; and “an out trans man” versus “openly trans” and “public.”
Oh for sure, I can amend the language in it. Thank you for letting me know ❤
I’m also now side-eyeing my doctor’s diagnosis of me as being a “high functioning patient” because I’d never actually thought of it that way before. That is…that is quite insidious when I think about it.
80% of my opinions on Tumblr discourse are driven by one principle. I call it the Hateful Shitbag test. Imagine a hateful shitbag, the kind of person who has a Blue Lives Matter flag and thinks Fox News is mostly good but not as insightful as Breitbart. The Hateful Shitbag test is to ask yourself whether that person, qua hateful shitbag, would like your opinions on a group in question. If they wouldn’t, it passes. If they would, it doesn’t mean you’re a hateful shitbag yourself, but it might mean you’ve internalized some of the narratives they spread, and it certainly means you’re giving them comfort.
For instance, take TERFs. They claim to be radical, but would a hateful shitbag approve of the way they talk about trans women? Hell yeah, they’d love it. In fact, a lot of them do love it and try to make friends. It fails the Hateful Shitbag test.
Would a hateful shitbag agree with how transmeds talk about non-binary people? How about how exclusionists talk about ace people? Or whoever the heck it is who goes on about MOGAI people? I really like the hateful shitbag test; it’s a good way to catch yourself when you start internalizing things.
tldr don’t act like hateful shitbags even if you want to
“if feminists want equality they should support women being drafted!” is one of the best examples of why it’s bad that feminism is misconceived as being about equality to men rather than liberation from men. men create war, men created the draft, we don’t want anything to do with it. I don’t want equal opportunity to be sent to war to harm women in other countries.
tired: let women be drafted uwu
wired: abolish the draft
inspired: abolish the military
“If women support equality, they should support draft abolishment!” is fair!
Feminism isn’t just about equalizing the sexes (although that IS a fundamental tenet).
It’s about increasing the HUMANITY available to ALL sexes.
Women want to earn equal pay for doing the same work as a man? Give it to ‘em! Men want to be able to express emotions without being belittled? Support and encourage ‘em! GNC and NB want to be recognized and also given equal rights? Do it!
Women want to stop being forced to bear children they can’t afford or don’t want? (And children want a guarantee of a loving family able to support them?) Enable Planned Parenthood and other orgs to teach people how to *plan for families*!
There are SO MANY feminist issues that anti-feminists re-word to sound evil/self-aggrandizing, but the majority of feminists know and acknowledge that men, women (and other sexes!) must live and coexist for society to work. Which means providing social equity, and legal protections where necessary.
ScarJo deserved the backslash, but [unpopular opinion] now she’s done the right thing, shouldn’t we start a deeper conversation about this? One that doesn’t involved transphobia AND misogyny? She’s producing the fucking film, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if it wasn’t for her interest in telling this story. So… yes, she deserved to be called out (not bullied), yes, she changed her mind, which is a positive thing, and yes, this doesn’t make amends for the Ghost in the Shell fiasco.
But I never saw Tambor, Leto or Redmayne saying “hey, I was wrong!” or producing an LGTB-centric film.
If we can’t show our allies compassion and understanding, how can we expect to get that from the rest of the world?
and you know what? it’s not up to us to know or decide if she “really learned something” or “believes it” or “truly changed”. Her actions changed, which was the point of the backlash. It’s like when companies support charities for “good pr”. yeah, of COURSE it’s good pr, but if people are still getting helped…why does it matter WHY?
“In other news, the sky is blue.” Wow, A+ commentary!
They had a Black historian look at their past issues and analyze them to discuss how the images and words they used were racist and the effects that racism had on people who read the magazine. It’s far more than a lot of other institutions have done. I don’t presume to know whether or how we can ever atone for racism (cough, REPARATIONS) but it does seem like a first step is acknowledging what you did was wrong and that you harmed people, apologizing, and then changing.
^^^
Yeah this is not an ‘we been knew’ moment. Those studies are because (to an extent) but this is a clear admission of guilt & if they change it’d literally b huge for POC everywhere
Queer Fiction Writer 