Disgust as the animating principle

Senthorum Raj reviews the animating principles informing the criminalization of otherwise ethically justifiable sexual behaviour:

We tend to assume that law is objective and disembodied, but the story of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK shows that, like the people who create it, it is in fact an emotional creature, animated by visceral human feelings — and as far as sexuality is concerned, the chief emotion at work is often disgust.

You don’t have to look very hard to see how much it was disgust, not a concern for morality or justice, that shaped the laws governing homosexual activity. In fact, in the UK, homosexuality was long deemed so perverse that to even speak of it in public would stain your character.

Criminal punishments for homosexual activity, which included the death penalty, thrived on disgust for centuries. Introduced by Henry VIII in 1533, the Buggery Act 1533 criminalised the “abominable vice” of anal sex between men. In his commentaries on the common law of England published in 1765, jurist William Blackstone described buggery as an “offence of so dark a nature” that “the very mention of [it] is a disgrace to human nature”. Colonial statutes (which are still in effect in a number of Commonwealth countries today) referred to sex between men as an “act against the order of nature”.

In 1895, writer Oscar Wilde was put on trial for “gross indecency”, a statutory offence introduced in 1885 to punish individuals who engaged in same-sex relationships, without having to prove they had anal sex. In sentencing Wilde for gross indecency, Justice Willsnoted:

The crime of which you have been convicted is so bad that one has to put stern restraint upon one’s self to prevent one’s self from describing, in language which I would rather not use, the sentiments which must rise in the breast of every man of honour who has heard the details of these two horrible trials.

Disgust, again, was the animating principle. In writing about the Wilde trial, philosopher and legal scholar Martha Nussbaum observes that disgust was not simply an excess or unintended consequence of prosecuting sexual offences; it was central to it. Criminal penalties were contingent on the extent to which the person, and the activity they engaged in, could elicit public disgust.

The observant might note that this remains salient today.

-Shiv

Zero HIV transmissions

Blanket criminalization of HIV nondisclosure has been shown to backfire. It reduces the likelihood that people will get tested for fear of breaking a law, thus paradoxically increasing the risk of transmission. By contrast, studies showing that people who have been diagnosed and who are following their treatment have not been able to spread HIV to their partners, even if the sex act is unprotected and even if the HIV negative partner is not taking PrEP. Per this blog’s usual stance of evidence based policy, this supports the conclusion that blanket nondisclosure penalties are unjustified.

The data back me up on this.

For the second time in two years, a massive study has found that for men who have managed their viral load to undetectable levels, it’s virtually impossible for them to transfer HIV to their male sexual partners.

Unlike last year’s study (“PARTNER”), which involved both different-sex and same-sex couples, the new study (“Opposites Attract”) focused entirely on same-sex male couples from Thailand, Brazil, and Australia with mixed HIV statuses. When one partner is HIV-positive and the other is HIV-negative, they’re referred to as a serodiscordant couple.

Over the four years these couples were followed, the study captured about 12,000 condomless sex acts between an HIV-positive partner with an undetectable viral load and an HIV-negative partner who was not taking PrEP, medication that helps protect people from contracting the virus. There were zero HIV transmissions.

An additional 5,000 condomless sex acts took place between a partner with an undetectable viral load and a partner who was taking PrEP. There were zero HIV transmissions.

Read more here.

-Shiv

 

Why do you hate prisoners?

Mike Epifani has a compelling piece on antipathy towards prisoners:

Over 6.74 million people are supervised by US adult correctional systems, and tens of millions of people have a criminal record. And to many, their rights don’t matter because “they must have done something wrong.”

Let’s start with the fact that “we spend billions to keep 480,000 people locked in cages without a conviction.” And that abhorrent criminal justice system practice is the tip of the iceberg — this is getting worse, not better. Jeff Sessions just recently reinstated the practice of allowing law enforcement to seize personal property without a conviction or even an indictment.

Did you know that around 95% of convictions are obtained through guilty pleas, and, more specifically, through plea bargaining? That means that only 5% of prisoners receive a fair trial. Most of us have seen it on television: the prosecutor comes in, says that if they really want to take it to trial, they’ll push for the maximum sentencing, but if they plead guilty, they’ll be charged with a lesser crime or receive a shorter sentence. Given the fact that many people who are arrested do not have the resources (time and money) to feel confident in their legal counsel’s chances in front of a jury, they’ll go with the guilty plea just to be on the safer side, guilty or not.

So, if the punishment really fits the crime, what is the justification behind making a deal to release them sooner?
Or does the punishment not fit the crime?
Or are they admitting that, in large part, prisons fail to rehabilitate?
Or is there often not enough evidence to lock up a cash cow (inmate), so intimidation tactics are required?

If you argue that the prosecution wouldn’t even bother proceeding with the process if the evidence wasn’t there to make a conviction…okay…but 95%? Only 5% of people convicted of a crime enact their 6th Amendment right to a trial in front of a jury of their peers? That seems right to you? Well, it’s not right. In fact, prosecutorial strategies when someone decides to take it to trial can be downright abhorrent, including blatantly adding additional charges.

Read more here.

-Shiv

“Biological sex” myths

Julia Serano is back with another fantastic takedown of arguments predicated on notions of immutable, discrete sex binaries.

Clarifying the “sex is a social construct” argument

Sometimes people who are trying to debunk “biological sex” myths will point out that sex (like gender) is a social construct. The reason for doing this is to show that the “biological versus social” distinction is far more muddied (as I have detailed in the last two sections) than the “trans women are biological males” camp is willing to admit.

Unfortunately, people who are unaware of, or misinformed about, social constructivism will often mistake the word “constructed” to mean “fake” or “not real,” and thus assume that such claims represent a denial of the existence of sexually dimorphic traits. However, this is not what the word “constructed” means.

Saying that sex is “socially constructed” does not mean that biological sex differences do not exist or do not matter. It simply conveys that our definition of sex, and the way that we categorize people into sexes, is determined by society and our assumptions about how the world works.

In our society, people are assigned a legal sex at birth based on the presence or absence of a penis — that is a social process. When people argue that it must be chromosomes, or a particular reproductive organ, that defines or determines a person’s sex, that is a social decision — one that ignores the multiplicity and variability of sexually dimorphic traits. Indeed, the very fact that, given the same evidence, people will disagree about the nature of sex (strictly binary versus multifaceted and variable; immutable versus somewhat malleable) demonstrates that sex is socially constructed!

So in other words, we can say that biological sex differences exist, and also that our understanding of sex is socially constructed — these are not contradictory statements at all.

Read more here!

-Shiv

I’m sure all the freeze peachers are right around the corner

Maybe all those people so heavily against censorship can actually pay attention to actual censorship instead of admonishing trans folk for not wanting to debate scientifically illiterate people who issue a ceaseless stream of threats:

Academic censorship is nothing new — especially for scholars of color — but in Donald Trump’s America, the issue has taken on new and frightening dimensions. Trump’s emboldened base, en masse, has been attacking leftist educators with renewed vigor since his election, and universities across the country have wasted no time caving to alt-right (read: white supremacist) pressure to discipline professors, freedom of speech/academic freedom be damned. In a peculiar twist of logic, members of the alt-right have positioned themselves as victims of discrimination, and as such, have demanded that universities take action to “protect” them.

Sadly, many are.

George Ciccariello-Maher was censured and is the subject of an ongoing investigation by Drexel University over a tweet mocking white nationalists. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor was bombarded with death threats for calling Trump a “racist, sexist megalomaniac” in a commencement speech at Hampshire College (though the school defended her, a rare occurrence). Johnny Eric Williams was placed on leave by Trinity College for using a hashtag drawing attention to systemic racism. Lisa Durden was fired from Essex County College for defending a black-only Memorial Day event while appearing on Fox News. This is just a small sample, all since November’s infamous election.

Inevitably, these stories get some press, then are largely forgotten. But the repercussions reverberate long after the news cycle has moved on.

I know because Trump’s weaponized base came after me, too.

Read more about it here.

And stop buying the fucking freeze peach canard with right-wingers issuing veiled threats.

-Shiv

Post-structuralist feminist

PST is an essayist whose series is still young. The works are meticulously argued, and thorough enjoyable for their acerbic wit. Here’s one she did on the motivations of the “YouTube Pundit” genre of vlogging:

The exasperation of the debunker presents as a study in contrast to the giddy self-importance of the YouTube Guru (who may themselves have begun this theatre of the absurd as a pseudo-debunker); Incredulous of the absurdity of the situation they now find themselves in, they also, unfortunately, realize they are one of a precious few people who are adequately equipped to untangle the mess that was gleefully dumped onto YouTube. Again.

The increasing prevalence of this situation is linked to the increasing popularity of a specific attitude — derisive, dismissive, and disingenuous — that has come into fashion over the last decade. It may be funny to think of attitudes as being subject to fashion trends, but it’s pretty obvious this is the case if you spend any length of time watching the various YouTube authorities and Gurus, particularly the ones who prefer to have every position with which they align themselves prefixed by “anti-”.

It is fashionable to LARP intellectual authority, even when it is clearly absurd for the person in question to have a reasonable claim to the title (at least on the topic proposed).

The basic drama of the LARPing performance also includes a crowd participation element — a kind of Greek chorus LARPed by the audience in the comment section — and the formula for the whole production is as follows:

The YouTube Guru has a video published of them haranguing on some topic/person/entire discipline that is presently fashionable to harangue (aka “cool” aka delicious internet points). The video might be an upload from the Guru, or might be uploaded by a curating channel. In either case, they have been posted on YouTube with a trendy title, which, at the time of the writing of this essay, is: “_____________ DESTROYED!!!”

Through the video, the Guru passes their pre-digested bits of nonsense down to the baby birds in the comment section, who chirp with delight at their imagined relationship and resemblance to the hero of the hour (doomed to falling out of favor as fashion changes, but for now, the “thumbs up” button is being tapped more than an excellent yo mama joke I could make right here).

The comment section occasionally includes something nominally reminiscent of debate, where fledgling birdbrains try their hand at further regurgitation of nonsense, or perhaps even jumping off an intellectual cliff entirely. “Dumpster fire” is a popular descriptor of comment sections for this reason, but there is at least a sense of belonging in the circle jerk flight patterns, a sense of family; the excitement of attending the daily reunion of All The Very Clever People.

This flavor of YouTube content (though it is an acquired taste, as the uninitiated readily observe) is apparently a very seductive treat — although, I think, seductive only when someone has been starved so completely of intellectual nutrients that any nugget even resembling wisdom is not only palatable, but seems downright profound.

Read more about it here.

-Shiv

“Biological male”

It takes a lot for me to endorse a Twitter thread, mostly because if your message takes more than one tweet I think you should just get a blog. Still, Zinnia Jones has made an argument for why insistence on labeling trans women “biological males” has troubling ethical implications, aside from the overly reductionist interpretation of science.

(Click on the embedded tweet to view the thread).

-Shiv

Liberal transphobia

Sam Riedel has a good review of recent events which are representative of a broader pattern: Trans folk have a very uneasy alliance with left-leaning people in general, because left-leaning people in general haven’t shed the kyriarchy’s nasty habit of scapegoating us.

Much of my marching time was spent exhorting bystanders to cheer for trans rights. As we passed the iconic Stonewall Inn, I turned once again to my right and screamed “If you have rights because of trans women of color, make some fucking noise!” Hoots and cheers ensued, and we proceeded on our way.

Little did I know that less than two hours later, when #NoJusticeNoPrideactivists blocked the tail end of the parade to call attention to violence against trans women of color, deportations, and the ongoing corporatization of Pride, 12 of them would be arrested by the NYPD. As those same Pride bystanders — standing outside the bar where Black trans activist Marsha P. Johnson, “The Saint of Christopher Street,” resisted arrest and started a riotthat would change the world — watched the arrests, they cheered again. Not for the protesters, but for the police. Judging from photos, at least one of those arrested was a transfeminine person of color.

The message, though unintentional, was clear: The cisgender Left, those who claim to support trans people and our struggle for civil rights (and who make up the vast majority of those at NYC Pride), are quick to cheer our oppressors when that support becomes inconvenient. Bystanders were happy to acknowledge Pride’s sociopolitical roots as long as that acknowledgment was brief and didn’t get in the way of celebrating. As soon as political statements became an inconvenience, their support was swiftly withdrawn. Similar protests took place at other Pride events; D.C. attendees were quoted in the Washington Post yelling “Shame!” and “You’re going to ruin the parade!” to #NoJusticeNoPride activists.

I imagine this is what strategists feel like when one of their pieces is erratic and prone to flying off the chess board. I’ve certainly had to swallow a few bitter pills any time I dip my toe in to local anarchist organizing–the tendency to view any and all institutions as having no justifiable function results in some theories based on conspicuously thin evidence–and I’ve had anarchists rather bizarrely claim that I am victim to the Illuminati “BigPharma.” They don’t seem to understand that the pharmaceutical industry’s biggest ethical problems are related to patents, intellectual property, and ownership; how these concepts interact with distribution or lack thereof; and how that distribution is not being accorded to physical need. Instead, biochemistry and pharmacology as scientific disciplines are capitalist lies!11!!1

Okay, bro. I’ll be taking your eyeglasses now, since medical aides are all a profit-conspiracy.

Read more of Riedel’s review here.

-Shiv

Against public marriage proposals

I’m a bit mixed on the notion of marriage. There’s a lot tangled up in that word: The legalities, how every legal system in the world (that I’m aware of) privileges a spouse over an acquaintance in multiple sectors of society, how estates can be combined or divided, how taxation can be collected as an entity rather than individuals. But there’s also the ceremony, how some folks spend an absurd amount on their wedding, something which I find difficult to stomach knowing how many resources are out there just barely scraping by who fill vital community functions.

Today, I’ll just signal boost one particular position–public marriage proposals are a shitty idea.

Recently, I had the abject misfortune to find myself part of a captive audience to a public proposal. I veered between burning mortification, obsessive checking that the woman was in fact definitely happy about this, and fury because I really needed a wee and this public proposal was going on right in front of my route to the toilet.

Public proposals have been discussed a lot in feminist circles, often viewed as coercive, rooted in insecurity, and not giving the person being proposed to a decent chance to say no. In short, they’re not romantic, they’re manipulative. This additional social pressure, with all eyes on you, makes it incredibly difficult to refuse, especially if the relationship you’re in already has overtones of coercive control. If you’re on TV, on a crowded street, on a packed aeroplane, you know that everyone is expecting you to say “yes” so everyone can feel good–and for women in particular this is the sort of situation where we’re socialised to avoid letting everyone down.

And of course, it’s almost always women being proposed to by men. You may have the odd same-sex couple or woman proposing to a man, and these are so remarkable they appear all over the bloody news (thus furthering the pressure).

Public proposals are, in short, dire. I don’t believe in carceral measures for massive social problems, but if I did, I’d make public proposals punishable by death.

(I gather from the rest of the blag that Stavvers is mostly joking.)

However, what I want to talk about is wider: the notion of the proposal itself. This, too, is unnecessary and actually rather weird when we drill down into it. Many couples, when deciding to get married, deploy the following format: one partner “pops the question” to the other, with a little bit of pomp and ceremony, perhaps kneeling and a bit of jewellery. The words uttered are usually a variation on the theme of “will you marry me?”, and the proposee will then say either yes or no.

Getting married is a major life decision, and yet it is the only major life decision I can think of which involves a bizarre ritual in making the decision. We do not buy a ring while figuring out whether to go to university or not. We do not book a fancy restaurant to have a think about buying a house. We do not get down on one knee when deciding if we want to have children. We do not put a cute little question in a fortune cookie when working through the various treatment options for an illness.

Read more about Stavver’s opinion here.

-Shiv