Stubborn Privilege and Trigger Warnings: The SexGenderBody Fiasco

[TW on all links to sexgenderbody for potentially-triggering material with no warning (I don't know what they've posted since writing this), and a really shitty privilege-heavy attitude on why they refuse to use them]

I'm not, myself, particularly big on tumblr.  At least not yet.  I have one, and I follow a few of my twiends who have tumblrs, but that's the extent of it so far.  However, as y'all may know, I am quite a fan of Twitter and spend a shit-ton of time on there (@WitchWords, if anyone cares).  I find a lot of interesting reading material, often stuff I blog about, via links people post on Twitter.  I used to get a lot of these from the @sexgenderbody Twitter account, which is linked to the sexgenderbody tumblog, which is as far as I can tell is curated and moderated by Arvan Reese, who founded it and the associated blog.  (I used to think there was no more awkward word for "collection of crap on the internet" than "blog".  I was wrong.  There's "tumblog".)

Sexgenderbody's tagline is "A direct, honest and respectful conversation about sex, gender and body."  They post links to blog posts and tumblr posts and images having to do with, you guessed it, sex, gender, and the body.  My content has shown up in the sexgenderbody feed a few times, and I've really enjoyed some of the stuff I have found by clicking through on items in their Twitter feed.  There was a bit of a furor over the inconsistent use of trigger warnings on the tumblr awhile back, and Arvan posted a big long justification that basically boiled down to "I don't object to them but I won't add them either."  I only skimmed it at the time, as I wasn't following them on tumblr and only click through on perhaps a third of the links they post to Twitter, if that, so I'd never come across anything egregiously triggering to me that lacked a warning.  It wasn't a big deal to me at the time.  Rereading it now, it basically comes off as a hugely privilege-denying wankfest of "If you don't like it close the browser," with a side order of "let's conflate offensive with triggering and post topless pics of men and women to prove our point!"  Also, "well with a name like sexgenderbody, you should expect to see NSFW stuff in the feed, I don't know why you're so upset."  Honestly, that article alone could feed creation of about four different PDDs.

I say I "used to" get blog fodder from them, because as of today I've unfollowed and blocked them on Twitter, and if I can figure out how to do it on tumblr (I'm still learning!) I'll be blocking them there, too.

Yesterday, one of the things they posted was [TW: self-harm, open wounds, blood] an image of a patch of medium-tone flesh with the word "DYSPHORIA" carved into it, still bleeding.  [END TW]  Several people used the "ask" thing on tumblr to request a trigger warning be placed on the image, since such a graphic depiction of self-harm could be *really* triggering to people.  Well, since their tagline says they're interested in "respectful" discussion, they immediately apologized and fixed it, right?

Lolno.  The first person to ask for a trigger warning - very politely, I might add - got this reply:

I’m not about to put a trigger warning on someone else’s body. If the OP put a trigger, I’ve included that. But it’s not *my* place to make someone else’s body a trigger.

...Whut.  What the fuck does "make someone else's body a trigger" even mean?  Adding a TW isn't "[making] someone else's body a trigger."  It's a triggery image whether it's got the actual TW on it or not.  All an actual TW would do is help keep people from being ambushed by a disturbing image that might trigger them into anything, from a few minutes of deep focused breathing and needing to look at pictures of kittens for awhile to calm down, to sitting in a corner shaking and crying all day, to attempting fucking suicide.  Why is the "respect" apparently all reserved for the person who posted it in the first place, and not the people who could have moments/afternoons/days/weeks/etc totally fucked up by seeing it without warning? 

But it got worse.  When someone replied saying it wasn't about making someone's body a trigger, but about the welfare of people reading who could be harmed, adding that they do self-harm sometimes and wouldn't want to trigger people, Arvan replied

"I respect your experience.  You should unsubscribe from this feed and take care of yourself - always.  Take care of yourself."

1: No, you don't.  If you did, you'd take two fucking seconds and put a fucking TW on it.  2: It's hard to "take care of yourself" by unsubscribing AFTER being triggered by something like this.  Saying "just unsubscribe" after the fact is singularly unhelpful.  

At that point, the responses of "this is not a "respectful discussion"" started pouring in. 

queeroctopus:

I think it's about time you changed your description. Your utter refusal to listen to anyone who finds some of the images triggering is NOT evidence of a 'respectful conversation' about anything. It would require very little effort on your part to put cuts or content warnings. And your reasons for refusal are ignorant. it is not shaming to put a content warning on cutting. It is, however, shaming to those of us with triggers to act like the existence of our triggers are somehow shaming people.

 whatfreshhellisthis:

You seem to misunderstand what triggers are for. ... It's not to protect people's sensibilities, or to censor content. It is a tool to help protect people with disabilities.
Refusing to put trigger warnings on content is incredibly ableist as you are excluding or directly harming people with those triggers.
This isn't a discussion.
Refusing to put trigger warnings is ableist, and is absolutely not, even slightly, respectful.

Those two and at least two others got a copy-pasted response of "We are not going to alter our behavior or language.  If this site or policy triggers you, please unfollow."  Way to engage your critics, Arvan! 

Well, of course people started to get angry.  Which, as so many privileged people* do, Arvan took as proof that zie was in the right because, y'know, you all are being so mean and disrespectful and angry at me!  And as we all know, being angry automatically means you forfeit the discussion and the calm person wins.

I'm not going to quote the rest of the answers Arvan gave to everyone's objections, cause this post is already long enough as it is.  Suffice to say, if you want a blood-pressure-spike-inducing read, click through on the sexgenderbody tumblr link I provided up top, and scroll through the first page.  On that page alone, I was able to check off the following bingo squares:

• Requesting trigger warnings is linguistic oppression!
• I'm not responsible for your emotions (Direct quote: "All of us need to be responsible for our triggers.")
• If you might be triggered, stay off the internet. (Not kidding, that's a near-direct quote)
• Calling me ___-ist is calling names!  Now who's the bad guy?
• Commenting anonymously means I don't have to take you seriously
• You're taking my words out of context
• Who are you to judge what's -ist and what's not?
• You're bullying me! (Also a near-direct quote)

For fuck's sake, that's almost a double bingo.  And throughout it all was the constant thread of "But if I put a trigger warning on that photo it would be mean/discriminatory/disrespectful/judging to the person in the photo!"

I genuinely don't understand the reasoning behind that.  Nobody who asked for trigger warnings was in any way trying to harm or condemn the OP.  A trigger warning on something is not a condemnation, nor a judgment.  It's a reflection of reality in a world filled with trauma survivors, and a courtesy to people who have already suffered to try not to add to their suffering further.  This is not, was not, has never been about the person in the photo.  It is about being a decent fucking human being.  It is about the photo itself and being responsible for the media one disseminates.  It is not about the person in it, or the person who took it, or the person who posted it.  It is about those who may see it.  Arvan is putting the spotlight squarely on the wrong person's feelings here.  (Why does that sound familiar?  Oh, right.  Rape culture.  Victim-blaming.  Whose feelings are important [the privileged person, in this case, Arvan*] and whose feelings can be discounted [the person actually being harmed].  This is a calculation we've all seen played out innumerable times.)

To repeatedly deny requests for trigger warnings on a photo like that one - I mean, shit, I'm not particularly easily triggered despite a history of self-harm in my own life, but that one was enough to make me take deep breaths and run through my "this is now, not then, you don't have to do that anymore" mental spiel to stay calm - is the height of rudeness and disconcern for your audience.  Arvan Reese of sexgenderbody has, in effect, told all hir readers, "I do not give a shit about you.  My intellectual high horse and misunderstanding of trigger warnings as censorship is more important than making sure the people who enjoy my tumblr aren't triggered into potentially killing themselves.  I think people with histories of trauma and neuroatypical people don't belong on the internet because their need for warnings before potentially triggery content inconveniences the rest of us.  People with trigger issues should be able to snap out of it and control their reactions, or else they just need to miss out on vast swathes of potentially-excellent content because typing two words at the top of a post is against my principles."

Well, Arvan, in that case, fuck you too.  

And if you're pissed off after reading all that, and just need a righteous fucking rant about it, check this shit out.  14 instances of fuck in 5 paragraphs.  Fuck yes.  Also, here is an excellent post about what being triggered can really do to someone, and here's a very thorough explanation of how forcing marginalized people to constantly defend their access to discussions about their issues reinforces their oppressions.

*I posit Arvan as "privileged" in the sense of not suffering debilitating triggered episodes versus those who could be truly harmed by a triggered episode, because while zie claims to have triggers of hir own in one of hir responses to a calling-out post, I almost doubt it; I kind of think someone who has genuinely experienced being triggered as opposed to being offended or upset by a photo of something would understand that triggering isn't something you can "be responsible for".  Zie's certainly acting like a PDD in this exchange, anyway.  My referring to hir as "privileged" is a specific reference to the privileged/oppressed pair of not needing trigger warnings/needing trigger warnings.  It is not meant to invalidate hir experiences of oppression on whatever other axes zie may experience.

Anti-Choice Hypocrisy, Part 465,423,831,835

Exhibit A: "Informed" Consent, or "Whose information are we offering here?"
 
A so-called "informed consent" bill is introduced by an anti-choice legislator in Guam.  Reproductive justice advocates know these bills are purely propaganda, designed to emotionalize the pregnancy and try to turn women away from abortion.  Sure enough, the original form of the bill requires women be told the "gestational age, anatomical and physiological characteristics of the fetus, as well as of the medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care," plus a video describing "the unborn child" and information on agencies offering "abortion alternatives".  Other legislators, however, got their hands on the bill during the amendments process, and the finished version instead requires that the woman be given information including "the name of the physician who will perform the abortion, the medical risks associated with carrying the child to term, the need for anti-Rh immune globulin therapy, and the consequences of refusing the therapy."  You know.  Actual, relevant information on carrying a pregnancy to term.

The legislator who originally introduced the bill is having a tantrum now, saying "...after further review of the bill in its final form, I realized this potential law may encourage abortions. ... This one-sided presentation no longer protects Guam's future children."  So, acknowledging that there are physical risks associated with carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth = encouraging abortions, and we can't have that...but downplaying those risks and editorializing about the "unborn child" in a blatant, outright attempt to encourage giving birth is perfectly fine?  Look, sir, your bill was clearly intended to influence women's decisions about their pregnancies in the first place.  You have no leg to stand on here, just because you're upset that it might influence them in the other direction than what you wanted.  If you don't want women influenced in a way you don't like, don't try to step in and influence them your way, either, because this is what you open the door to: equal-opportunity influencing.  Which, let's face it: that's not what you hypocrites want.

But back to this whole idea of "informed consent".  Pregnancy *has* risks.  That is solid, undeniable, medically-established FACT.  First-trimester abortion (which is when some 98% of all abortions take place) is, statistically speaking, safer than giving birth at full term.  Anti-choicers claim to want to "inform" women, but when it comes to giving them actual information about the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, they want to cover up all the negative information and portray it as a win-win situation.  How could this be said to be about information at all, at that point?  It's not.  It's about deception and influence and controlling women to do what they want us to do.  Period the end.  So they don't like *actual* informed consent requirements, because they're afraid of what women will do if they're actually given information and space to make their own decisions.

Exhibit B: Clinic Regulations, or "We are rubber, you are glue, attempts to regulate us bounce off of us and stick to you!"

Last month, a bill passed the Michigan Senate, regulating how clinics which perform abortions dispose of the products of conception.  Based on an unfounded accusation that someone found fetal remains in a dumpster behind a clinic (although police investigations over a period of 8 months found no such remains, and what the hell were they doing going through the dumpster anyway?), the bill would require clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains, and would mean fetal remains are no longer classified as "products of conception" along with the placenta and other tissues.

Simultaneously, over this past year anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" in Baltimore and NYC have been screaming bloody murder about "violations" of their First Amendment rights, because of bills being debated/passed that would require them to display signs openly admitting that they do not provide or refer for abortion or contraceptive services, and advertising whether or not there is any medically-licensed staff on-site.

What's wrong with this picture?

Seriously.  Anti-choice CPCs, generally staffed only by volunteers, which are well-documented to lie, pressure, manipulate, and threaten women into keeping their pregnancies, throw tantrums worthy of a spoiled 4-year-old being denied hir favorite toy at the idea of being subject to any kind of truth-in-advertising regulations, while the same anti-choice legislators who support those CPCs will happily regulate every possible aspect of a *real* clinic's functioning they can get their hands on, from record-keeping to scripting their counseling sessions to which kinds of ultrasounds they must offer on what kind of equipment and, now, how they dispose of medical waste.  (Yes, antis, pregnancy tissue, including the fetal remains, are medical waste, same as tissue remnants from any surgical procedure.  So are your tonsils.  Get over it.)

Have these idiots even noticed what gigantic, flaming hypocrites they all are?  Do they even care, at this point?  Or are they so far gone in their war on women's autonomy that they will ignore any contradiction and go to any lengths, no matter how irrational, to further their ultimate goal of total control over women's sexuality and reproductive rights?

This, by the way?  Is why common-ground approaches are doomed to fail.  You can't compromise with this kind of shit.  Attempts to do so will only give them more ground, and they will *never* be satisfied.  I thought we would have learned this by now.

To Correct Some Misapprehensions The Right-Wing Seems To Be Laboring Under

PROP H8 HAS BEEN OVERTURNED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!  

Judge Walker issued a 136-page ruling (available here) declaring that Prop H8 was a violation, separately, of BOTH the due process AND equal protection clauses of the federal Constitution, AND that the claims of the anti-equality side couldn't even stand up to the "rational basis" standard of review, which is the least stringent standard!  Additionally, he set forth a wonderful list of "findings of fact" tearing apart the secular arguments against marriage equality ("findings of fact" in a case are given very heavy weight in appeals to a higher court, while "findings of law" are basically tossed and redone from scratch on appeal, so these findings are a lasting gift to our side).  This is an absolute, unqualified win for the forces of equality in this state and the country.  No word yet (that I've heard) as to whether or not Walker will issue a stay pending appeal, as requested by the anti-equality side.  [EDIT: Walker has issued a temporary stay pending hearings on a longer-term stay]  So far, it seems that Prop H8 has been overturned entirely.  Next step is the 9th Circuit, then after that, SCOTUS.*

It's been highly entertaining, if a bit predictable, watching wingnut heads explode over the decision.  I've been following the coverage on Right Wing Watch (available here; refresh for updates as they come available) and it is every bit as over-the-top and panicky and filled with hateful bile as you might expect.  Some select quotes:

Focus on [Your Own Damn] Family:

Judge Walker’s ruling raises a shocking notion that a single federal judge can nullify the votes of more than 7 million California voters, binding Supreme Court precedent, and several millennia-worth of evidence that children need both a mom and a dad.

Concerned [Self-Hating] Women for America:

Judge Walker’s decision goes far beyond homosexual ‘marriage’ to strike at the heart of our representative democracy. Judge Walker has declared, in effect, that his opinion is supreme and ‘We the People’ are no longer free to govern ourselves.

CWA CA Chapter:

Today Judge Vaughn Walker has chosen to side with political activism over the will of the people. His ruling is slap in the face to the more than seven million Californians who voted to uphold the definition of marriage as it has been understood for millennia.

Family [Discredited] Research Council:

It's time for the far Left to stop insisting that judges redefine our most fundamental social institution and using liberal courts to obtain a political goal they cannot obtain at the ballot box.

Alliance [of Hateful Heteros] Defense Fund:

It’s not radical for more than 7 million Californians to protect marriage as they’ve always known it. What would be radical would be to allow a handful of activists to gut the core of the American democratic system and, in addition, force the entire country to accept a system that intentionally denies children the mom and the dad they deserve.

American [Hetero, Monogamous, Childbearing] Family Association:

This is a tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance. Judge Walker has turned ‘We the People’ into ‘I the Judge.’ “It’s inexcusable for him to deprive the citizens of California of their right to govern themselves, and cavalierly trash the will of over seven million voters.

Notice a pattern here?  It's all variations on one theme: the Activist! Judge! overturning the Will! Of! The! People!  And after reading these, it becomes quite clear that this wingers need a remedial course in American gov't and various types of governing systems.


As a Twiend of mine pointed out after seeing Walker's ruling, now is a good time to ruminate on the difference between a raw democracy and a constitutional republic.  The USofA is a constitutional republic.  Features of a constitutional republic include: a founding document which lays out a meta-framework of guidelines and principles for establishing the rules and laws of the land, and a limited type of democracy that allows the citizenry at large to elect representatives, who then go on to do the actual lawmaking independent of direct interference by the citizens who elected them.  A raw or pure democracy, on the other hand, is characterized by every decision being made by general election, or "the will of the people is the law".  


Since the US is a constitutional republic, the directly-expressed "will of the people" (mind you, that's the will of 52% of the people, not exactly a resounding majority; I wonder why they're not screaming about the will of the 6.5 million people who voted against Prop H8 in between shrieks about the 7 million who voted for it?) cannot overrule the meta-guidelines laid out in the foundational document.  And I don't know what Constitution they're reading while they're having their little headsplosions, cause my copy has these nifty bits about the government not impeding citizens' rights without due process, and having an obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, and it seems like Walker's copy corresponds with mine.  


I mean, really, when the judge's decision extensively cites not only the Constitution (with which conservatives seem determined to wipe their asses *coughBushAdministrationcough* right up until a progressive does something they don't like, at which point it's all THE!CONSTITUTION! YOU!CAN'T!DO!THAT! whether or not the document in question supports their freakout) but a not-insignificant body of established case law as precedent, the whiny bile of right-wingers is pretty clearly exposed for what it is: petty bigotry trying to cover itself with the flimsy shield of deliberate misinterpretation of and selective inattention to the Constitution under which all our other laws fall.


So here it is, right-wingers: Go and reread the fucking Constitution.  Nowhere in there is there a right, either explicit or implied (and no, you cannot pull the 10th amendment on this one, because due process and equal protection are in the federal Constitution, and the 10th says all powers/responsibilities not enumerated herein go to the states), of the people to vote to deprive other citizens of their rights in violation of the Constitution.  Period, the end, that is all, THE GENTLEMAN WILL SIT!

*According to a legal-issues reporter who's been following the Prop H8 trial and who I've been following on Twitter, @FedcourtJunkie, the State of CA is not going to appeal this decision, and the 9th Circuit may decide that the pro-H8 campaign doesn't have standing to appeal, saying: "Btw, Yes on #prop8 has serious standing problems for an appeal. This will become a huge issue very shortly- they might not be able to appeal".  So we may or may not see this go any further.  

Bite-Sized

Alright, dearloves. I know I've been neglecting you lately. But I keep opening links, promising myself I'll write about them just as soon as I'm done with homework or the laundry, and then I've got two dozen tabs open, each containing a story I really want to write about, and it starts getting overwhelming to the point where I start hiding in WoW.  So I'm going to just toss down some links and snippets to get the backlog out of my brain so I can get back to regular posting.

In abortion news, Oklahoma's legislature overrode their Governor's veto to pass two incredibly intrusive and frankly immoral anti-abortion laws - one requiring vaginal probe ultrasounds for first-trimester abortions, along with a detailed description of the fetus, with no exception for rape, abuse, or incest victims (yeah, THAT'S not triggering at all), and the other allowing doctors to legally lie to pregnant women about the health of their fetus and not get sued for it.  This has been covered really well elsewhere, so all I'll say is, it is really fucking stupid to pass these at the same time, because it's very easy to compare the two bills and see in the second bill the proof that the first bill's ostensible purpose of "providing more information" to pregnant women is an utter crock of shit, because in the same breath that they say "We just want to give her information!" (if that information would discourage an abortion) they're willing to legally provide for the withholding of information (if that information would encourage an abortion).  Also, Florida is trying a similar tactic, only they also want to make women pay for the ultrasound, to the tune of $350 or so, thus putting abortion services further out of reach for low-income women - and thus enlarging the demographic of children in poverty, because THAT'S pro-life, right?  However, Florida Dems have more spine than the national set, it seems, because when it came to the House of Representatives for a vote, they used a procedural move to close everything down to avoid a vote on this bill.  Cookies for the Democrats in the Florida HoR!

In news of the Big Gay Agenda, a Mississippi school decided to punish a lesbian student for wanting to wear a tux instead of a drape for her senior photo...by completely cutting all mention of her from the yearbook.  Not even her name sans photo.  The family has the ACLU on their side and they're considering pursuing legal action.  I wish them luck.  Also, the Religious Reich is screeching [trigger warning on that link for vicious lies of the gay=pedophile sort] about the audacity of Congress, to consider protecting LGBT students from bullying.  Of course, this really makes them look like they're shielding bullies, especially when juxtaposed against this story of a bunch of highschoolers who tried to push their lesbian classmate off a cliff during the National Day of Silence protest.  No, gay students totally aren't targeted by bullies.  Just ask that girl.  And on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell front, a group of retired chaplains sent a letter to the President and Secretary of Defense asking them to keep discriminating against gay servicemembers (not that they need encouraging, frankly) because apparently discrimination is a zero-sum game; to not discriminate against gays is to discriminate against chaplains somehow.  They fail to mention non-Christian or even not-anti-gay-Christian chaplains in their handwringing about how Oh noes chaplains will be forced to treat gays like everyone else and that's against our beliefs!   Listen, if your beliefs interfere with your ability to treat all people with respect and compassion, maybe you need to take another look at the ethics and morality of those beliefs.

In news of oh my fucking RACISM, the Arizona police-state profiling law (short version: the police now have the right, and even the duty, to demand freedom papers citizenship documentation from anyone who looks like an escaped slave illegal immigrant.  They don't say outright that they want to check all brown people for green cards, but how else do you think they're going to decide who "looks illegal" or not?) seems to have brought out the worst in every politico's inner white supremacist.  From a CA state rep from San Diego saying he'd like to see the American-born children of immigrants rounded up and deported for not being American enough, in blatant violation of the 14th Amendment, which reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." to Texas reportedly considering a bill like Arizona's, to the worst of all, a stunningly racist Republican running in an Iowa primary, who said "I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"  Well, how about because immigrants, illegally here or not, are PEOPLE, not DOGS, entitled to just as much bodily sovereignty as you yourself are, and also YOU DON'T OWN THEM, and while we're talking, HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN IN A POSITION TO RUN FOR OFFICE?  Listen, you pathetic, miserable excuse for a human being.  Talk like this?  Is how the fucking Holocaust started. Shut the fucking fuck up and get some fucking therapy before you find yourself touting a Final Solution to the "immigration problem".

And lastly, in sheer stupid what-the-fuck-ery, the Teabaggers are staging a boycott of San Francisco (in response to their decision to end official city business travel to Arizona because of the above-mentioned racist law)...by congregating in San Francisco to protest.  Teabaggers?  Just so's you know.  A boycott generally includes things like AVOIDING the boycotted place. 

There's plenty more stories where these came from, of course, but they're mostly religion-related, and I feel they deserve a more in-depth treatment than this format.  Look for normal posting to resume this afternoon!

Guest Post at The Deviated Norm

I've written my first guest post this week, for a series over at The Deviated Norm called "Today in Meet A Poly Person".  The blogger, DeviantE, is looking to present the variety of lived poly experiences in the voices of those who have lived them, in order to combat stereotypes and straw-relationships that are so easily knocked down.  So wander on over, take a read, check out the rest of the series (still in its infancy, with only DeviantE's and my posts up yet), and if you're poly, consider asking if you can write a guest post yourself!