Category Archives: Uncategorized

Thinking About Slurs

[Content note: I use a lot of uncensored slurs in this piece. Might want to skip it if you're at work and your job would frown on you reading something with racist slurs in, or if you don't want to read uncensored slurs.]

Slurs are weird.

Think about “tranny.” From a certain perspective, it’s odd that trans people consider “tranny” insulting. It’s literally just a diminutive of “trans.” People use “tranny” to refer to transistors all the time.

The rest of the slurs are also… really incompetent insults. Near as I can tell, slurs fall into two categories: either they’re a variation on the name of the group or a former name of the group (“retard,” the famous “nigger”) or they’re an essentially random collection of letters complete with unsourced etymological explanations that explain why these letters insult that group (“spic,” “kike,” “fag”). When slur-makers do attempt to be creative, we wind up with slurs like “sand nigger.” See, they’re bad like black people, but they live in the desert, so sand!

Condescending Wonka.

I think that’s where the “it’s just a word, why do you let it hurt you?” brigade is coming from. It seems absurd that I am insulted by an essentially random collection of letters– what’s more, that I feel threatened, attacked, scared because someone used a diminutive for a label I own proudly.

But… it does make sense. Because those words are meaningless. The only thing “tranny” means is “you’re trans, and I hate you for being trans. You being trans is despicable and wrong. I don’t even have to bother to come up with an insult; the mere fact of your existence is insult enough.”

The very meaninglessness of the words make it worse.

And that’s why only the people a slur is used against can reclaim a slur. Because we’re saying “fuck you, our existence is not an insult.” We’re saying “I know you hate me, and I don’t care. I know you think I should be ashamed, but I refuse to be ashamed. This is who I am.”


[Tyrion Lannister, from Game of Thrones: "Never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you."]

It is, of course, somewhat less effective to wear who someone else is like armor, and that is why white people are not allowed to call themselves “niggers.”

About these ads

Don’t Call Circumcised Penises “Mutilated”

[By request of Zuiyo Maru.]

I am, like most right-thinking people, anti-circumcision. The health benefits are fairly small (as are the risks, to be fair), which means it’s primarily an aesthetic procedure. And, no, you do not get to do aesthetic surgery on babies’ genitalia. If they like the way circumcision looks they can get the procedure done when they are of age. (As regards the religion issue: I am uncomfortable forbidding circumcision to devout Jews and Muslims, but I also see the merits of the “kids shouldn’t have to get surgery because of their parents’ religion” argument. Regardless, in the US, most circumcision is not of Jews or Muslims.)

At the same time, I am very against people calling male circumcision “male genital mutilation.”

The number one rule of writing things is to remember that the people you’re talking about are reading your article. If you wouldn’t say it to their face, don’t put it in print. Autistic people will read your article calling autistic people empathyless monsters. Geeks will read your article talking about how weird and freaky cons are (“sometimes people dress up in costume!”). And circumcised men are reading when you call their genitals mutilated.

You’d think this would be easy to remember, because four-fifths of American men and a third of worldwide men are circumcised. It’s not like circumcised men are a tiny minority one could conceivably forget about.

And, you know, I feel like “don’t do aesthetic surgery on babies’ genitals” is a strong enough argument without having to add in “…because they’re horrible and ugly and a perversion of the way genitals are supposed to be!” Like. It doesn’t matter. Circumcised penises are fine. Uncircumcised penises are fine. It’s just that what one wants one’s genitals to look like is a decision that should be made by adults who have assessed the benefits and consequences of the procedure, not by parents when the child is too small to speak, much less consent.

And that’s an argument you can make without having to call people’s perfectly attractive, perfectly functional, perfectly okay genitals mutilated.

The Hedonistic Hypothetical

I first noticed this hypothetical in the comment section of Scott’s post about how polyamory is boring. To wit:

Comfort is irrelevant. It works, for society, over the long run. I want to have a harem of the 10,000 most beautiful women to screw whenever I want. That would make me comfortable. It’s also bad news for I would hope are obvious reasons.

To which I reply: no, you really don’t. In fact, pretty much the only reason someone would want a harem of 10,000 women is to show off how rich they are that they’re capable of having 10,000 women. I mean, there are only 365 days in a year; either you only have sex with about a hundred of your harem, in which case the extra 9,900 are pretty useless, or you are constantly having shitty sex with new people who don’t understand how to get you off. And imagine the politics about who gets to be in the favored 100! It’d be a headache.

So really the idea that people will attempt to have harems of 10,000 women is a pretty shitty argument against people being in relationships they want to be in, because no one actually wants to have a harem of 10,000 women. You might think you do: possibly because you don’t understand how big ten thousand is; possibly because it sounds like the sort of thing hedonistic people are supposed to want; possibly because you’re a carrier of the Protestant Ethic and you feel like people being happy has to be sinful somehow.

This belief is surprisingly common across several different areas of life:

  • If I don’t diet, I will eat NOTHING BUT TWINKIES!
  • If I don’t exercise self-control, I will DO NOTHING BUT HAVE SEX!
  • If women had libidos like men, everyone would fuck constantly until CIVILIZATION WAS DESTROYED!*
  • If we don’t force children to learn, they’ll WATCH TELEVISION ALL DAY AND NEVER LEARN ANYTHING!
  • If you don’t believe in God, what’s stopping you from RAPING AND MURDERING PEOPLE?

The answers, respectively: if you eat a Twinkie-only diet, you will get a stomachache. If you try to do nothing but have sex, you will get hungry and sore and bored of sex. Gay men are, of course, noted for their lack of valuable artistic contributions to the world. Non-depressed people generally do not watch TV all day every day. Most people do not want to rape and murder people. These are really obvious facts.

I’ll call it the Hedonistic Hypothetical: the idea that if people give in to temptation they will do literally nothing else but give in to temptation. Instances of the Hedonistic Hypothetical are particularly common about sex, food, and kids, but they can be said about pretty much any kind of pleasurable thing.

Sure, if you eat whatever you want, you will probably eat more Twinkies than is strictly healthy, and kids left to their own devices will probably watch more TV than is best for the growth of their minds. There’s probably even one person who was like “I would have raped that lady, but God is watching!” instead of “let me rationalize why rape is okay according to my religion.” I’m not saying that a life of unrestrained hedonism is the best for everyone; self-control is useful. I myself often choose to have fewer Skittles than I want! (Twinkies are gross.)

What I am saying is that a life of unrestrained hedonism does not look the way you think it looks. “As much physical pleasure as you want” is not the same thing as “constant physical pleasure.” Stop pretending they’re the same thing.

*sorry, if I didn’t have self-control I really would pick on the Heartiste formerly known as Roissy all day. In this case the Hedonistic Hypothetical really is true.

Ozy Is Coming To The Bay Area!

I am, in fact, coming to the Bay Area* over spring break, mostly so I can see my FABULOUS BOYFRIEND. (I have no idea what I’m doing to get such a fabulous boyfriend but I hope I keep doing it.) I’ll be flying in late this Saturday and returning on Monday April 1st.

I know I know people in the Bay Area whom I don’t have plans to see, but I can’t remember who you people are, so if I know who you are and you want to hang out you should email me or leave a comment here or tweet at me or something and we can Make Plans.

(If I don’t know you and you want to hang out, leave a comment here anyway. If there are a substantial enough number of you then I might arrange a meetup thing.)

Also, while I have some backlog of posts, posting will probably be light.

*The one in California. Not the one in Massachusetts. Sorry, Massachusetts people.

Prudes’ Progress: Why Not Instrumental Sexuality?

[Part of the Response to Prudes' Progress series, mostly a response to this bit. Trigger warning for rape.]

Sex-positive feminists have this weird tendency to say “anything between consenting adults is okay!” That’s really dumb. Five minutes’ thought will reveal that consenting adults can have all kinds of unethical sex.

For instance: it is not ethical to cheat on your partner or have sex with someone who’s cheating on their partner. It is not ethical to bring a child into the world when you can’t make sure that it’s properly taken care of (whether through adoption or parenthood). Reproductive coercion is not ethical. (In fact, reproductive coercion is abusive behavior.) Lying to obtain sex is not ethical. Having sex with someone when you have reason to believe they will regret it (for instance, because they believe premarital sex is immoral or because they’re not ready to have sex yet) is not ethical. Not giving a fuck about your partner enjoying themselves* is not ethical. Obviously, reproductive coercion and rape are far worse than having sex with someone who might regret it or not caring about your partner enjoying themselves, but these are all Bad.

I think instrumental sexuality is a mindset that often leads to behavior that hurts other people and yourself, and is therefore generally bad, even if the sex is consensual. I would call it bad in the same way hate is bad. A lot of people hate people and don’t hurt anyone, which makes it a bit difficult to call hate strictly immoral; in fact, some people find their hate empowering and enjoyable and generally happiness-maximizing. Certainly it is unreasonable to expect everyone to not hate anyone. Still, if you have a choice between hate and not hate it is generally a good idea to pick not hate, and if you have a choice between instrumental sexuality and not instrumental sexuality it is generally a good idea to pick the latter.

(Disclaimer Time: I’m not talking about mutually enjoyable BDSM that simulates instrumental sexuality here– I’m going to talk about that later, but suffice it to say that playacting disrespect and objectification is not the same as disrespecting and objectifying someone, as every good dom knows.)

Partially, this is because instrumental sexuality tends to lead to assorted kinds of asshole behavior. If you treat other people as a means to your orgasm, it’s very easy to be like “well, they consented, whether they’re happy about it afterwards is their own business.” Or “well, they consented, I don’t really have to care about whether they liked it.” Or “well, they consented, never mind I had to ask them half a dozen times first.” Yay, you get the coveted Not A Rapist Award,** go you.

And partially because I’ve noticed– in both my case and the cases of people I’ve talked to– that sex is actually the most fun when we have it with someone we like and want to be happy. Sex we’re having for validation, or as a conquest, or because everyone else is doing it, or out of a sense of duty or obligation, or to prove something to ourselves, or because we’d feel like a loser if we didn’t, or out of desperation, or because it’s something you’re supposed to do– that is, instrumental sex… well, it’s just less good sex.*** I’m a utilitarian. I want there to be more good sex in the world!

This is not, of course, to say only relationship sex or sex where you’re in love with your partner is good sex. You can like someone and want them to be happy and want to fuck them if you met them two hours ago! You can certainly like someone and want them to be happy and not be in love with them or want to date them. Conversely, you can be in love with someone or in a relationship of long standing with them and have all the instrumental sex.

*Please note that I mean “enjoying themself” in the broadest possible sense– for instance, someone can enjoy giving their partner pleasure, or playing a particular role, or exploring the limits of what their body can take, or whatever. Talk about what you want out of sex ahead of time! This message brought to you by Sex-Positivity.
**Except the third person, who gets the Possibly A Rapist Depending On The Exact Circumstances And What Definition of Rape We’re Going By Award. ***Every time I make a generalization about sex I get at least three people in the comments telling me that they are, in fact, completely the opposite of my generalization. So this footnote is to say that if you have sex for those reasons and it works for you and you aren’t hurting anyone else, great, knock yourself out. I dunno how much you’ll get out of the rest of the series though.

How The Blatant John Stuart Mill Ripoff Relates To Social Justice

I think a lot of people underestimate how powerful social norms are. But humans are social animals! “My social group approves of me” is a big motivator for most people. But American culture has this whole rebellious individualism thing going on. So we have words like “good” and “cool” and “successful,” all of which essentially mean “my social group likes this!”

A lot of social norms are good. For instance, “you must not be stinky” is an excellent social norm (as anyone who’s been around someone with con crud can attest). Social approval or disapproval is a great way to handle actions that affect other people, but in such a minor way that anything more than social disapproval would be way too fucking coercive. Furthermore, social approval feels really really good! There’s nothing wrong with a “fans are unreasonably enthusiastic about children’s cartoons” norm, as long as the people who aren’t unreasonably enthusiastic about children’s cartoons are free to hang out with the “watches the football game every Sunday” group. And a lot of social norms don’t really matter– “everyone stands facing the door on the elevator” is a norm, but a minor constraint on one’s “which way do I face in the elevator?” choices has very little effect on one’s life.

But a lot of social norms are really dumb. For instance: I do not like my college’s parties. They are loud and involve drinking and drug-taking (which I have a phobia of) and lots of strangers (which I also have a phobia of). The music makes it hard to talk, and I can’t follow a conversation with more than a handful of people in it anyway. I like dancing, but I can dance in my room alone just as well. Practically, whenever I go to one I tend to fall asleep in the room intended for people who are having bad trips (which is admittedly an awesome room that has vegan cookies and tea and stuffed animals and crayons). It is completely irrational for me to go to a party. And yet every time I kiss my boyfriend goodbye as he goes off to the party I feel this sense of “I ought to be going to the party!”

Because… well, you’re supposed to. Going to parties is cool. Staying inside alone and reading is Terminally Uncool. It is a Sad and Pathetic and Lonely thing and therefore (my brain insists) I ought to not be Sad and Pathetic and Lonely by… doing something I don’t enjoy and that gives me panic attacks. Okay. That’s dumb. It benefits no one, as far as I can tell, and makes me feel like shit for no reason.

A lot of social justice-y things are really bad social norms. (Structural marginalization is obviously a case of unnecessary constraints upon choices, and thus Bad.)

“Women should prioritize their families over their careers, and men vice versa” is dumb: what if the man would be happier as the primary caregiver? “Trans people must know they were trans from early in their lives, be gender-conforming, want all available surgeries and hormones, and fit perfectly into the binary, or they are Not Really Trans” is dumb: what if you aren’t and you’d still be happy with a different hormone arrangement? “Bisexuals should be equally attracted to men and women and ideally date 50% men and 50% women” is dumb: what if you happen to meet a string of really cool guys, does that invalidate your attraction to women?

In Praise of Reformism

A lot of social justice type people really like the idea of The Revolution. Someday, they say, we will smash white supremacy/capitalism/patriarchy/the state! And then everything will be perfect and rainbows and sunshine and Kumbaya!

Fortunately, this never really gets beyond reblogging “If I Had A Hammer I’d Smash The Patriarchy” pictures, but nevertheless I feel like this is an extremely destructive tendency that needs to be nipped in the bud before people start building barricades.

Imagine that social justice is like climbing mountains. You want to walk to the top of the tallest mountain because… I don’t know, it’s there. But, instead of a normal human, you are a video game character with two powers: Walk and Jump.

If you use Walk, you move to the next square on the board. It’s pretty easy to get to the top of a mountain that way: all you have to do is keep going up. Even if you make a mistake, it’s easy to move back to where you were. Unfortunately, the mountain you’re trying to climb on might not be the tallest mountain in the mountain range.

On the other hand, you can use Jump. If you use Jump, you land on literally any other square on the board. Jump has a chance of putting you in a better position. Of course, a lot of squares are lower than where you started out, especially if you’re pretty high up the mountain already. Even worse, sometimes when you Jump you break your legs and then you can’t move at all.

Trying to reform the system– starting a women’s shelter, agitating for better food stamps laws, educating your friends about racism, whatever– is using Walk. A world without a woman’s shelter is worse than a world with a women’s shelter. It’s still horrible; if it wasn’t horrible, we wouldn’t need a woman’s shelter. But it’s a little better.

Revolutions use Jump. Sometimes revolutions are awesome and you end up with the United States and a democracy instead of a king! But a lot of the time revolutions end up as Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China, or the Khmer Rouge. I mean, sure, you don’t think that your plan to smash the state will lead to mass starvation and murder, but neither did the people who supported Stalin. He did not get into power because he promised to put dissidents into gulags.

I’ll take “guaranteed to be a little better” over “chance that it’s way better, chance of gulags” any day.

The other problem with revolutionary thinking is that it tends to blind people to the stuff that can improve the world right now. A lot of revolutionaries nowadays don’t really have a plan for how the revolution is going to come about, except “everybody talk about revolutionary theory a lot.” To be fair, this is a much better plan than “let’s accidentally make Stalinist Russia,” since discussing revolutionary theory is an entertaining hobby that is unlikely to hurt anyone. But it doesn’t help people either.

One more rape crisis center or one more person educated about good consent and respecting boundaries seems like such a small victory when compared to a world without rape. But we know how to achieve the former and have no idea how to achieve the latter (except that it possibly involves dancing). Energy directed towards “let’s make a world without rape!” is wasted unless it causes actual changes in the actual world that we live in.

Sex Education

[For Forward Thinking. See, this time I'm not writing it at the last minute so I can actually be in the blogaround thing!]

Giant-Ass Caveat: I am not a parent. The closest I’ve come to being a parent is teaching a girl scout troupe, occasional babysitting, and researching Montessori homeschooling. Actual parents should feel free to laugh at my idealism in the comments.

The prompt is “What would you tell teenagers about sex?” which I feel is already misguided. To me, sex education begins when children are very small.

Sex education begins with consent education and a fundamental respect for bodily autonomy. Obviously, for children, bodily autonomy cannot be inviolable (sorry, kid, you’re getting your vaccines no matter how much you protest) and if your child is very small then it’s difficult if not impossible to tell if they consent to be touched. But there are a lot of times in the average child’s life where they are forced to hug or talk to someone they’re scared of, or be tickled by their parents even when they’re screaming no, or otherwise have their consent violated for the amusement or convenience of their parents. How can we teach kids that no one should touch them without their consent if we touch them without their consent?

It’s also important, I think, to demystify sexual anatomy. It’s not “down there” or “your weewee,” it’s a “penis” or a “vulva.” Furthermore, while you’re explaining penises and vulvas, you can also take the opportunity to explain that some girls have penises, some boys have vulvas, and some people with penises or vulvas are neither girls nor boys.

I wouldn’t necessarily expect my children to come to me to talk about sex as they got older. Therefore, it would be important for my children to have access to adults who share my sexual values and whom they could ask questions of. (Those adults could also discreetly take my children shopping for a vibrator/dildo/Fleshlight/whatever, if my child wants one.) In return, I am happy to be the adult who answers questions for my friends’ children.

In addition, every child I have is getting a copy of What You Really, Really Want by Jaclyn Friedman around puberty, and a link to Scarleteen or whatever sex education websites are available at that time. Seriously. What You Really Really Want is fucking awesome, everyone should buy it for their teenagers and also for themselves, Jaclyn Friedman is my sex-positive feminist idol. [/plug]

If my children (or somebody else’s children) asked me about sex, this is what I would say. Not as a giant lecture though! Because dear God can you imagine getting from “what is sex?” to “condoms!” in one lecture? I imagine this would be spread out over multiple conversations, paced by the child’s interest and readiness.

For many people, touching their penis or vulva feels good. Because it feels good, sometimes people want to touch each other’s penis or vulva. There are lots of ways people can touch them. We call all the ways people can touch each others’ privates “sex.” Boys can have sex with boys, girls with girls, boys and girls with each other, and nonbinary people* with boys or girls or other nonbinary people. As long as everyone involved wants to have sex and likes each other, there is no wrong way to have sex.

One of the ways people can have sex can lead to having a baby. It’s when someone’s penis goes inside someone else’s vagina. When this happens, cells called sperm can come from the penis through the vagina and into the uterus, which is a space behind the vagina. Sperm cells combine with egg cells to form a fetus, which will grow into a baby.

When people have the kind of sex that leads to making a baby, they can use birth control medicine or put a condom over the penis to make sure they don’t have a baby. You shouldn’t have a baby unless you are ready to take care of it.

Some diseases called “STIs” are spread through having sex. Getting an STI doesn’t mean you’re dirty or bad, but you can still do things to make sure you don’t get sick. When you’re having sex, you should get tested regularly to make sure you don’t have STIs. If you use a condom or other barrier, the germs can’t spread.

You should absolutely not have sex unless you want to have sex. Remember how I said that people shouldn’t touch you unless you want them to? The same thing goes for sex. If someone is trying to get you to have sex you don’t want, tell me or another adult. Some adults are bad people who will try to get you to have sex you don’t want; if an adult is trying to get you to have sex with them, you should tell me or another adult.

Some people want to save sex until they get married or are in love; other people don’t. Some people never want to have sex at all. Whatever you do is fine, as long as it makes you and anyone you have sex with happy.

You shouldn’t have sex until you are ready to have sex. You shouldn’t have sex if you feel doubtful or about wanting sex, or if you’re uncomfortable or scared in any way, or if you’re trying to hold a relationship together or get something out of sex besides sex. You shouldn’t have sex if you’re not able to talk to your partner about what you like or don’t like. A lot of times people feel big emotions after sex– anything from disappointment to suddenly falling in love with their partner– and you should be prepared for those feelings when you have sex. If you feel like you want to have sex, you can talk to me or [Trusted Adult X] about birth control and STI prevention.

*They’re my kids, they’re going to know what a nonbinary is.

New Year’s Day

Happy New Year!

This year I’m not having greens (for money) and black-eyed peas (for luck), which as a proper superstitious semi-Southerner is filling me with vague dread that the New Year is going to go awfully.

On the other hand, last year I had black-eyed peas and greens and I landed in the mental hospital twice. So maybe it works less well than I think.

My New Years Resolutions are as follows:

  • Try to become kinder, more compassionate, more empathetic, more understanding. Remember that whole “people are complicated” and “you don’t know what’s going on in people’s lives” and “everyone is the hero of their own story” thing.
  • At the same time, be better at expressing my needs. I have this whole complex where I Don’t Want To Be A Burden but then I end up sobbing on the bathroom floor or self-harming or suicidal or ending my relationships with people and all that’s way more burdensome than asking for what I need in the first place.
  • If it is out of my control, I do not get to worry or beat myself up about it. Things that are out of my control: the past, the future, other people’s opinions. (Of course, I can still plan for things, but planning feels different/more empowering than worrying. Ugh, I keep using the word ‘empowering,’ it sucks.)
  • Figure out how to manage my fucking panic attacks.
  • Do empirical research! Don’t die. I’m sure empirical gender-related research is not as hard as it looks. …Right?
  • Make enough money that I don’t starve to death or stiff my partners on the rent.
  • Learn more things. I am an autodidact by nature and I really need to keep doing that. Specifically, I really want to learn more science, more math, and programming! XD
  • Write fiction. I really, really, really miss fiction. I have a Giant List of all the stories I need to write; it’s about time I write them. Fanfic! Short stories! Novels that are basically thinly disguised fanfic!

What are your New Years’ Resolutions? Or, if you don’t do New Years, what are your goals in general?