Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Walking out of the cinema after seeing ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’, I nod in agreement to my friend’s comments of "that was soooo good", "what a feel good film", but I have a sneaking suspicion I may be lying.
I love political correctness. I really do. I feel safe in the knowledge that racist, sexist or homophobic remarks will not (technically) be tolerated. We are living in a still progressing society. The issue of the pay gap between men and women is still being recognised and protested against, and, despite occasional opposition, gay people can legally secure their rights as a couple. We are, however, far from living in an equal rights Utopia.
The most worrying aspect of modern opinion is that suddenly the term ‘political correctness’ is being used as a shield for astounding bigotry. The defence by people who spout bigoted vile is simply to say that ‘political correctness has gone too far’. The most empowered people in society (i.e. white heterosexual men) can demand that their rights are protected, by labelling the defence of other’s as ‘a step too far’. The comment sections on the Daily Mail website are, obviously, frequently home to such absurdity, with one P.C.-phobe even suggesting that “Political correctness should be made illegal as much as the fraud of racial superiority.” I hope I am not alone in detecting the irony...
In our own University of York, we are seeing it for ourselves. The huge backlash against Peter Warner-Medley’s request for the word ‘sex’ on data response forms to be changed to ‘gender’ seems to stem exactly from this. The most frequent opposition I have heard has been based wholly around the idea that it is just unnecessary. This is the result of people making a big deal about nothing, and it is ‘political correctness gone mad’.
I cannot stand it when lecturers or students use the terms ‘man’ or ‘mankind’, when they could easily substitute this for ‘people’ or ‘humankind’. It is an unnecessary clinging-on to an age gone by when the only people recognised for their contribution to society were male. We are not in that time anymore: move on.
I want to reclaim the word ‘politically correct’, and reuse it as a symbol of the intolerance of bigotry and people hating
Likewise, if we are living in a time (and we are) when some people do not feel comfortable putting their birth sex on a form, unless the answers are needed to research biological differences between men and women, it is simply not a big issue. Men can still let everyone know they are male if they want; women can still let everyone know they are female if they want. Most questionnaires now do feature ‘gender’ as opposed to ‘sex’. More importantly, Facebook does.
Also, if a form asks for a person’s ethnicity, there is always an option of ‘other’, and generally, ‘prefer not to specify’. This is particularly common with questions of age and sexuality. If so, why the surge of resentment towards this particular UGM motion? Possibly, and worryingly, because of a complete fear of change. If the term were in use in the 1800s, I’m sure that some would have applied it to the 1882 Married Woman’s Property Act. Maybe even in 1967, when homosexual sex was finally decriminalised in Britain.
Why, then, should we accept its pejorative usage today? In ten or twenty years time, I feel positive that more people will support the rights of the trans community in labelling, or refusing to label, their own gender. Refusal to accept this now is only reflective of the previous opposition to changes in culture that most today see as right. Nobody else is hurt if a person chooses to not declare a specific gender. Repulsion of such re-wording simply stems from some people refusing to allow others a more comfortable life because of a complete aversion to change and diversity. I want to reclaim the word ‘politically correct’, and reuse it as a symbol of the intolerance of bigotry and people hating. I will quite happily be the first person on here to say that I, Hannah Cann, am politically correct and proud.
#19, "a troubled relationship between body and identity is reducible to a mental health issue in every case." ?! How can it not be? What else can it be but a psychological issue?
A.
#21 is clearly right.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/Pages/Introduction.aspx
Whilst I agree that additional provisions should be offered whenever possible, the fact of the matter is that people will never find happiness if they just choose to run away from the challenges they face.
I think we can not even begin to imagine how difficult the process of dealing with such a condition must be. But I think we can also realise that the path to self-acceptance will need to be followed sooner or later.
I believe this is the point Aris Catsambas is trying to make, and it is one that a reasonable person would find it difficult to disagree with.
22 - 'one that a reasonable person would find it difficult to disagree with' - right so if one disagrees with you then their views are unreasonable. That makes a sound argument.
Yes gender dysphoria is treated as a mental condition but, as far as I'm aware, if one was to undergo a sex change then they have to consult a mental-health professional to declare them mentally sound before any medical steps are taken. However, I find this view that trans people are mentally ill quite a bold statement - as if being trans is not healthy, not normal and needs to be cured. The truth is that, for some people, being trans is normal. It wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was classified as a mental illness - do we agree now that it was wrong to classify it as such? Yes. Homosexuals aren't abnormal, or mentally unstable - guess what? The mental health profession got it wrong and you'll no longer be able to find an nhs weblink to introduce me to the symptoms of the condition of homosexuality.
Aris, 'what else could it be?'- well as I tried to explain in my post, I believe that society constructs normative relationships between people's bodies, sex, gender, and identity. These 'norms' alienate some people and leave them without a mode for identification. I believe that this could cause a psychological issue about identification but not because they are mentally unhealthy for being trans in the first place, but because they are treated as abnormal by the assumptions our society makes about sex and gender. Is it really their mental health issue if it's being caused by a society that gives them little means to express themselves as normal? Back to the homosexual analogy - gay people were constructed as mentally ill because society was unwilling to tolerate an alternative to heterosexuality. Undoubtedly, psychological issues would have been caused for some, but resulting from the small-minded prejudices of others rather than their own unhealthy mental states. I'm not saying that this is the experience of all trans people - it's possible that some people who feel they are trans do have mental health issues in the first instance - just that it has to be a consideration.
To number 20, I feel unable to refute your post due to its seriously outdated contents - you've managed to dismiss the last 30 years of gender theory in a few lines. I direct you once again to Judith Halberstam, and Judith Butler's Gender Trouble is a good start. Do you not realise that we live in a heterosexist and heteronormative society (i.e. one where heterosexuality is constructed as the norm, one that assumes people are straight, and tries to construct gender differences between the sexes as natural rather than socially instilled)? Heterosexism is the reason why gay people have to 'come out' as opposed to heterosexuals who don't, it's the reason why there are social taboos around gendered objects (why men don't freely go around in skirts, for example), and why there are labels on toilet doors. I'm not saying that removing these labels is going to achieve world peace, universal tolerance and absolute equality, but, honestly, do you think the world would crumble we had a degendered toilet? I know plenty of women who already do use the boys toilet, such as on nights out, and guess what - their gendered identity remains intact - they haven't gone home attempting to pee standing up. I remember watching Ally McBeal as a teenager and there was a unisex toilet on that - that wasn't a big deal either, and that was what, like 10 years ago? It's a pretty old idea really, sharing a bathroom with people no matter what their sex or gender; just not put into practice often enough to become normalised. Instead it's constructed as something dangerous and impractical when in reality it can be neither or these things.
#23: "I find this view that trans people are mentally ill quite a bold statement - as if being trans is not healthy, not normal and needs to be cured."
I would find it a bold statement too, but it was never uttered by anyone. What Aris Catsambas said is that hating yourself (regardless of being trans) is an issue that needs to be addressed, and not being hidden from.
"The truth is that, for some people, being trans is normal."
Hating yourself, however, is undeniably a psychological issue. No one here suggested that people 'shouldnt' identify with the opposite gender or that this is 'abnormal' and the likes. The argument here is that the ideal path would be that of self-acceptance, not self-hate.
"do you think the world would crumble we had a degendered toilet"
No, I'm saying that there are PRACTICAL REASONS for which not ALL toilets are gender-neutral, as you'd seem to prefer. As I've said, I do not oppose the UGM.
I think my point still stands - if the world was more accommodating of trans people and didn't normalise a system of gender binaries then I believe that many trans people wouldn't hate themselves period; they would be able to accept a trans identity more easily if the world around them wasn't constantly labelling them as abnormal either explicitly or implicitly (such as bathroom labelling).
And actually, I have found Aris' posts indirectly suggest a link between trans people and unhealthy mental states. There seems to be a suggestion that all trans people experience hatred towards their bodies and therefore all have mental issues. I think you need to challenge your own views more and really think about the implications of what you suggest; I have found Aris' and some others views insensitive, narrow-minded, and judgemental. Someone else referenced Aris' nouse post earlier as evidence of the 'backlash' against the motion - clearly I am not the only one who thinks these opinions need to be challenged.
I doubt we'll ever agree on this issue. I didn't say that I'd prefer gender neutral toilets - just trying to point out that it is these things which prevent trans people from being accommodated fully. I personally wouldn't have an issue with sharing a bathroom with men, or trans people, and the only practical issues that I see relate to the fact that gendered toilets already exist and it would take time and effort to change this. Yet, this shouldn't prevent social change.
I don't think 'hating' yourself has anything to do with it. Someone not feeling comfortable in either sexed toilet is not because they hate their bodies. It is because they don't see themselves as either sex - mentally and physically. If a person looks like a man but has a vagina, which should they use, if they feel comfortable in their own bodies and don't 'hate' themselves? Women may feel awkward with them in a ladies toilet, and they may not want to be in a men's toilet. Not that this would happen at York (we hope), but some trans people have been raped when using a male toilet. There is an issue of personal comfort when using a male toilet if you do not have a penis.
#19 and #23
I'm sure they'd really appreciate it if you contacted the LGBT Officers on lgbt@yusu.org or joined their mailing list. YUSU LGBT regularly holds discussions on topics such as gender, and it sounds like you could make a really interesting contribution 
Thanks, I'm already all joined up 
"And actually, I have found Aris' posts indirectly suggest a link between trans people and unhealthy mental states."
This is really frustrating. If you are unable to read an opinion without detecting, or rather inventing, non existing links and taking offense, then it is you who is narrow minded. In fact, what better definition of narrow mindness than one who cannot discuss an opinion contrary to their own without taking personal offense, and waving the "bigot" banner?
The fact that you are not alone in misinterpreting my opinions does not corroborate your case either. Hitler was not alone in hating Jews, does this justify him?
I am not the one who suggested a link between being trans and hating yourself - Elliot Smith did. It has only been supporters of the motion who have been claiming that trans people are not in peace with who they are, I never made such an assertion. I only took their word for it. Now, if you are telling me that there is no such thing, then why bother changing toilets and fill-in forms?
A.
Ha! Waving the 'bigot banner'. I only wish such a thing existed. The thing is Aris, people are entitled to their feelings and opinions. The way you expressed yourself made me feel that your view was judgemental etc, just as the way I express myself frustrates you. If that makes me narrow-minded in your opinion then so be it. And so be it if you feel that the way others have similarly taken your views to be narrow-minded is incorrect. Naturally, just because others have 'misinterpreted' you views isn't to say that you are indeed narrow-minded. Equally, it doesn't mean to say that there is nothing in this either - perhaps you should examine the way you're coming across rather than dismiss everyone else as narrow-minded and unintelligent?
No, #30, I shouldn't. I have stated in nearly every single post that I do not mean to offend anyone, and I have stated over and over that I never meant that being trans is a problem. I have very clearly said that the problem is disliking yourself, whether that is because you are trans, short, chubby, or whatever else. If people still take offense, if people still don't understand my point, it is entirely their fault, not mine. The fact is, people got offended simply because I was against the motion. Had I said "I fully support this motion, because being trans may cause psychological issues which need addressing, and this motion will ease life for them", I would have been hailed as understanding and kind. Now, that I am saying the exact same thing, in claiming that people may have issues, I am considered a bigot.
And it is not the way you express your views that frustrates me, it's that you are plainly wrong. Even if you did misinterpreted my opinions, now that I have made myself clear, you owe me an apology, you and everyone else who labeled me as a transphobe. I at least post all my comments under my name, so if anyone feels offended, they can discuss it with me in person.
A.
I don't owe you anything. You are taking this all too personally - I haven't called you a bigot or a transphobe and I don't recall anyone else who has. Neither did I know how you voted on the motion, my motivation for challenging you is not a personal one. It is my right to express myself about how you come across and I have done so without conflating the way you express yourself with the person. I have found some of the ways you have expressed yourself as seeming narrowminded, I have not said that you yourself are a bigot or transphobic - simply that SOME of your posts haven't been as delicate as they could have been (in my opinion). But it's your right to express yourself how you like, your right not to challenge yourself, your right to assume everyone else is in the wrong. I respect that. But it's my right to challenge people's opinions and expressions if I like, and that's all that I have done. I'd like to categorically state that I'm not suggesting that you are the campus bigot so you can leave that argument to rest, and I haven't been personally insulting - if anything I've been talking about how society, as a whole, doesn't accommodate trans needs as well as it should. So no, I don't owe you an apology in the least for partaking constructively in a debate.
I wondered how long it would be before the old dig at anonymous would resurface. I have the right to be anonymous without having to explain myself - simple as.
If you choose to be anonymous, you cannot tell me "I have never called you a bigot" - there is no way for me to distinguish you from the set of anons. Other people have, indeed, this article seems to imply it.
I have not taken anything personally, I am not emotionally upset. It's people who have taken offense at what I've said who tend to take things personally.
And yes, by all means, you have the right to be anonymous. This does not mean it's decent. In fact, in my opinion it shows cowardice, simple as that. No matter how much I challenge myself, I cannot think of a single reason for posting anonymously. If you are an elected officer, and are afraid of the impact your comments will have, you should be ashamed. People who elected you deserve to know the opinions of their representatives. If you are not, then why hide under anonymity?
A.
tbh, being anonymous just says that you don't believe in what you're saying enough to actually put your name to it.
Fortunately for me then, I'm not living in a Western or Arthurian romance and therefore don't subscribe too strongly to notions of bravery or cowardice. I find it hard to see how posting anonymously or not renders one decent or indecent. Surely it's the contents of the post that determines that? Why would I be afraid of the impact of my comments? I come from the most open-minded of positions, with an informed knowledge of some of the issues raised through both personal experience and through a genuine interest in sociological theories of gender and identity formation. I feel confident that I've expressed myself eloquently, concisely and diplomatically - not generalising, not throwing personal insults etc. But no, I'm not an elected officer nor have I ever been - but this is irrelevant anyway.
Maybe you can't believe that I've never called you a bigot, but if you choose not to be anonymous then you must be prepared for people to associate your views with you the person, and for them to address you directly. Just because you have relinquished your right to remain anonymous does not mean that you should try to coerce others to do the same by insinuating their cowardice or indecency. I'm not going to engage in a justification of my right to remain anonymous.
As Chris said, being anonymous weakens your arguments - why would one trust someone who does not sign their name beneath what they write?
The reason I provide my name is a) so that people can confront me directly if they have a problem with what I say, and b) those who elected me can see my opinions, and if they feel I do not represent them, can run a no-confidence motion against me.
Now, there was an article (I believe it was on the Times), that claimed that people have become much more vicious since they were able to express opinions anonymously. In effect, it is similar to pack behaviour: no-one can identify you, so you can do or say anything you want, not caring about consequences.
And posting anonymously is indecent, because you don't provide the platform for people to criticise you. You may want to maintain your diplomatic stance- "have it good with everybody", but this is not fair. If I disagree with your opinions, why should we be on good terms? Why don't you identify yourself, so I can confront you?
A.
And Chris, what is my motivation for spending quite a bit of time on here today if it's not believing strongly in what I say?
Its perfectly possible to continue a civilised discussion with an anon. Resorting to anon bashing suggests useful discussion has come to an end.
I think it is wonderful that forums like this exist so that people can debate these issues. Problems of inequality, prejudice and bigotry exist predominantly because of a lack of knowledge and understanding, and an unwillingness to remedy this. I would like to thank Hannah for writing this blog, and for having the courage to breach such a controversial issue in such a public way, and not for the first time. However, I fundamentally disagree with what she has said, and would like to share why, with reference to various other posts where relevant.
Whilst agreeing that it is a good thing that ‘racist, sexist or homophobic remarks will not…be tolerated’, the fact that Hannah feels safe in the knowledge that this is an achievement of Political Correctness is quite sad. People should not show others respect because of legislation or because they do not want to be seen badly by society. They should do it because they believe that it is the right thing to do. This is an issue raised by the story of the Ring of Gyges in Plato’s Republic. Not doing something because of the fear of repercussions is nothing to be proud of, and will never result in a fair and equal society. The ‘equal rights Utopia’ that Hannah desires will never exist as long as people rely on political correctness and other artificially constructed facades of equality, such as gender-neutral toilets.
I know that Hannah is not alone in her dislike of the terms ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ to describe the human race. Jason Rose’s comment (#2) is a good response to this issue, and the author of comment #13 should read it again, as they have clearly not read it properly: “I have my Old English dictionary in my hands and 'wer' refers exclusively to men: 'male being, man, husband, hero' and occasionally 'troop or band'. Perhaps it is more likely that the modern English 'mankind' derives from the Old English 'man' or 'mancynn', words which both had universal meanings” (#13). This is merely a repetition of the point that Jason made. The word ‘wer’ exists in modern English in the word ‘werewolf’ meaning ‘man-wolf’. However, in general usage the word ‘wer’ has been changed to man, which in this context means an adult male. The Anglo-Saxon word ‘Man’ exists in modern English with its form and meaning unchanged, and is still a gender-neutral term for the human race. The English language is a rich and complicated language in which the meaning of a word changes depending on its context. For example, the word ‘bow’ can mean a type of knot, e.g. a bow-tie; or a weapon, as in a bow and arrow. Although they are the same word they have completely different meanings that are unrelated to each other. I would also like to point out that the words ‘woMAN’ and ‘huMAN’ do not carry any sexist connotations either.
Jason also raises the point of sex-specific nouns. I do not see the problem in calling someone an actress, or a chairwoman. Sex-specific nouns exist because there is a difference between males and females, and this is not restricted to humans. People refer to dogs and bitches, lions and lionesses, stallions and mares, toms and queens. This is not in order to oppress one group. It is to recognise that we are individuals and that we are different! And it is wonderful that we are different. These differences should be celebrated, not systematically destroyed in the name of equality. If we are all identical we are not equal. Equal does not mean the same. The author of comment #19 would like the introduction of unisex toilets, and many others want the eradication of sex-specific nouns from our language. Perhaps we should also remove all fingerprints at birth, all distinguishing features. Perhaps we should introduce a world wide language and uniform. Perhaps we should create a society of clones: hundreds and thousands of genetically identical people that all look the same, sound the same and act the same. Will we then have created a society of equals? Will that be the equal rights Utopia that Hannah dreams about? No, it would not. It would be a world far worse than anything that H.G. Wells ever dreamed of.
Equality will not be achieved by removing differences. It will be achieved by removing the idea that differences are bad. Recognising and accepting differences is one of the best ways of showing your respect for someone and treating them as an equal. People who are different do not require special treatment, and giving it to them is disrespectful. It shows that you see the difference and feel that it is something that needs to be compensated for. Equality will not exist as long as people are offended by difference. Political Correctness is not a solution to this problem. All it will do is prevent a solution from ever being found, and as a result, I believe that Political Correctness can never be anything but a symbol of bigotry and oppression. I have a great deal of respect for Hannah and her dream, but I can not join her in her stance. I am NOT politically correct, and I am proud.
39 - I (author of 19), for one, have not been calling for the removal of differences, but rather for a celebration of them. I have repeatedly stated that the world should adapt to accommodate the differences that do exist between people (such as the differences between trans and non trans people), differences that seem to be ignored in instances such as gendered toilets. I'm not calling for unisex toilets all round, but simply challenging the ideology that makes this a controversial topic - and yes, I believe it is heteronormative ideology that makes it controversial, rather than concern about practical implications. In this case trans people do need extra provision because them living in a society that alienates them each time they go to use a public bathroom is not a society that accepts their differences at all. Creating a degendered alternative toilet might seem as though they are receiving 'special treatment', but in reality these considerations should have been granted long before now.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report