"Where are you from?"
"I'm actually from Glasgow."
"Is that where you're from?"
"Well, I was born in Dumfries, but I've lived in Glasgow my whole life."
"Where's your accent from?"
"My adopted parents are English, but they live here and I've lived here my whole life."
"You're English."
"I was born in Scotland, I've lived in Glasgow my entire life."
"You're English."
If people want to ask me where my accent is from, that's fair, it's not a Scottish accent, really. Although people living in England have said I have a Scottish accent and even put on a twee old-lady Scottish accent in mockery of me, it's a weird accent and that's fine.
I really, really hope right-minded people will get over the England/Scotland rivalry sometime soon. Now, don't get me wrong. Politically, you may have a point, considering the very real division we've just witnessed following the election. But nationalism is just so fucking boring, for real.
Population-wise, England is about ten times the size of Scotland, which is the second largest country in the UK. That doesn't mean we should sit down and allow ourselves to be marginalised, but it does mean we might have to let the whole Mars bar fiasco go and give a fuck about something a little more important. I think that, maybe, the English flag is on the Mars bar in support of the English team in the World Cup, I don't think it's there to spite Scottish people with regards to a feud which was supposedly resolved, hmm, three hundred years ago. Maybe we should talk about the complete disregard and marginalisation of women in popular sport. Or come up with an actual reason why Scotland is better than England, why Scottish people are fundamentally, intrinsically, inherently better than English people. Why xenophobia is okay when it's against the English. I mean, hey, the Romans attacked us, didn't they? Let's hate on Italy. The problems that Britain has are spread throughout Britain. One fifth of the population living in poverty being one I'm quite concerned about.
I'm basically just very, very bored of the pathetic, useless waste of time and effort that is presuming one's own identity is better than others. The U.K. is better than other countries, Scotland is better than England and Glasgow is better than Edinburgh and the Southside is better than the West End and Strathclyde is better than Glasgow Uni and Hillpark is better than Woodfarm and Shawlands is better than Hillpark and anywhere is better than Hutchy and Rangers are better than Celtic and Catholics are better than Protestants. It's all the same, absolutecompletesheerfucking prejudice and snobbery everywhere and people, in the mad scramble for pride and identity, becoming snobs on the presumption that others elsewhere are snobs in return. Snoooooooze. It's not much of an identity if it's based on trying to prove how terrible others are. Making an angry point about your nationality is fruitless (unless maybe someone refused to believe you were what you said you were, hahahahaaa, I'm so funny).
Having never lived in England and having visited only on holidays and technically having no English blood (though the importance of biology I could dispute on account of being adopted /tangent) it would, of course, be a straight-up, outright lie to say that I am English. I'm not English.
And since the overwhelming majority of people who have spoken to me about my accent seem to be subscribing to some kind of Scottish Nationalist purity law, whereby someone born and raised in Scotland is not, in fact, Scottish, I'm going to deliver a massive fuck-you in the form of adhering to the taboo of claiming that my nationality is British. Ooooooh!
Another post asking the general public to try and be less dickheadish, brought to you by Bo. (Taking my own advice any moment now)
Monday, 31 May 2010
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Elections and the Big Mouths
I was VERY interested by the Labour manifesto. I read through it, taking in as much as possible and then, believing myself to be mistaken, I did a search for anything related to transpeople and came up with nothing. There were two allusions to preventing homophobia but, man alive. How does this, to the untrained eye, weigh up against the Lib Dem and Conservative manifestos? Well, the Lib Dems, being the only ones to mention transpeople, an actual plan to stop product testing on animals and oppose the expansion of Heathrow, they have my vote, for want of a more radical alternative. The Conservatives made a lot of noise about the environment, managing to mention specific issues that had come up in neither the Lib Dem or Labour manifesto - but they apparently have absolutely no interest in any type of equality for queer or transpeople, since we didn't get a mention in the whole damn thing.
Literally anyone who has done any type of sociology can see through the way these are written. Don't put any type of faith in a promise to "prevent" or "further" or "support" or "promote" when it isn't followed up with an actual plan.
I'm not very political, in terms of governmental structure. I don't really understand the lingo and to be honest, when I look at Nick and Gordon and David all neatly lined up, with their ties, I see three rich, white, straight men, christian with the exception of Nick Clegg, an atheist, raising his children to be catholic - hmmm. I took geography instead of modern studies and learnt about how the shape of a building can reduce crime rates and about the vicious cycle of the spread of AIDS in Africa. I only vaguely know what a seat is and how it works and often I see the government in a sort of BNP/not-BNP binary, because I know for sure that I don't want it to be the law that everyone must own a gun and join the military for a year and I'd be papped out the country anyway for not being quite white.
However, being as it is that I am a person, a U.K. citizen, fairly intelligent and with a valid opinion and the option to vote, how I view the three most popular parties is quite relevant. If I'm going to vote for them, they're going to have to represent my needs in some way and take into account all the important minorities that make up a large chunk of the British population. Moreover, something I really don't enjoy is being pwned by political smartarses who talk purposely in terms that they know for sure I won't understand and in the tone of making the assumption that I understand it and I might as well bend over and enjoy a good political shafting whilst I cry bitter, salty tears about the sheer lack of humanity in the whole system of competitive politics.
And that really is the thing in the manifestos I've been reading - were they written by a robot? Some kind of media expert robot, that knows how to sound better than it is to those who haven't had the benefit of being taught about the tricks used to fool the general population? Just throw together the last linguistic ingredients you found at the back of the cupboard and make a yummy-looking word-pie, the kind that you scoff and then end up in the night, on the toilet, feeling like someone plunged a knife in your gut. There is nothing human about these manifestos. It's the mocking chat before a fight. Like any other business, it all seems to me like a game of shoogling the little people around a map and assigning them to red, blue or yellow.
This is the excerpt from the Labour manifesto that interests me and the most. Oh, where to begin dissecting this.
"We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco, and we will bring forward further animal welfare measures. We will campaign internationally to end illegal trading in ivory and to protect species such as polar bears, seals and bluefin tuna, as well as for an EU-wide ban on illegally logged timber, banning it domestically if this does not succeed."
Now, I wrote to Tom Harris when the animal welfare laws were being overhauled, imploring him to support the least cruel routes possible and he wrote back to me in full support of such ridiculous practises as tail docking and the use of snares. Nice. So what we've got is one big, fat, mouthy policy to "further animal welfare measures" which doesn't permeate the entire party. When it came down to it and Mr Harris exercised his power, he voted against better animal welfare. The thing of it is, I focus on this section because it interests me. But there's no evidence that this incongruity isn't a pattern across the board. We need to know what we're voting for.
Something that has been particularly annoying me about the Labour campaign is this habit they've developed of pointing to everything they've done in the past, boasting about how brilliant they are, instead of looking to the future. "We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco." Foxhunting was banned six years ago and animal testing for cosmetics was banned no less than TWELVE years ago, and only after some quite extreme activism. Labour didn't sit up and think this a good idea for themselves, they reacted to the severe pressure of animal rights activists and are now using it as a trump card.
"...we will bring forward further animal welfare measures." Oh, I'm convinced. Nice use of detail there. It's convenient that any number of laws could be skewed as an "animal welfare measure." You could give chickens a marginally larger cage or use one less rabbit per LD50 test and call it an "animal welfare measure."
It's nice also to say that you will campaign internationally to end the illegal ivory trade, but that's also extremely convenient. We're talking about a trade which is already being fought against so thoroughly by so many different groups, which has already been made globally illegal, but again, Labour rummage around in their pockets for something to pull out and wave around, the easiest passing bandwagon that they could jump on to prove they're concerned about animals.
Ditto the polar bears. Want to help polar bears? Help the environment and maybe we can stop the ice caps melting. Labour support the expansion of Heathrow. Now, I've spoken with the man who glued himself to the prime minister as a form of nonviolent protest relating to climate change. I was advised that the world is seriously hanging in the balance and that the expansion of Heathrow is one of the worst possible things that can be done to the environment - and from someone doing his masters researching the effects airports have on climate change, I'm inclined to pay attention.
Ditto the tuna. Concerned about big, endangered fish? Oh, no, just the ones we eat. And then, to cap it all, to exemplify the absolute, sheer stupidity of whoever bothered to try and include animals in this manifesto - timbbbeeeeerrrrr! Again a ban is proposed on something which is already illegal. I'd prefer to hear "we will enforce the system whereby illegal timber is prevented from being sold in the U.K." or "we will regulate the origins of all timber entering the U.K., thereby ensuring no illegal timber is sold." But what irritates me more so than anything else is the idea that elephants, polar bears, seals and tuna have anything at all to do with timber.
Like with so many other important issues, they touch on a few of the more obvious points, play a few cards, wiggle their shoulders intimidatingly and then relate nonhuman animals... to timber. Oh dear.
In the words of the aforementioned activist, "we are not going to wait around for politicians to catch up."
I just wish I was brave enough to sit atop the Parliament to protest climate change.
Literally anyone who has done any type of sociology can see through the way these are written. Don't put any type of faith in a promise to "prevent" or "further" or "support" or "promote" when it isn't followed up with an actual plan.
I'm not very political, in terms of governmental structure. I don't really understand the lingo and to be honest, when I look at Nick and Gordon and David all neatly lined up, with their ties, I see three rich, white, straight men, christian with the exception of Nick Clegg, an atheist, raising his children to be catholic - hmmm. I took geography instead of modern studies and learnt about how the shape of a building can reduce crime rates and about the vicious cycle of the spread of AIDS in Africa. I only vaguely know what a seat is and how it works and often I see the government in a sort of BNP/not-BNP binary, because I know for sure that I don't want it to be the law that everyone must own a gun and join the military for a year and I'd be papped out the country anyway for not being quite white.
However, being as it is that I am a person, a U.K. citizen, fairly intelligent and with a valid opinion and the option to vote, how I view the three most popular parties is quite relevant. If I'm going to vote for them, they're going to have to represent my needs in some way and take into account all the important minorities that make up a large chunk of the British population. Moreover, something I really don't enjoy is being pwned by political smartarses who talk purposely in terms that they know for sure I won't understand and in the tone of making the assumption that I understand it and I might as well bend over and enjoy a good political shafting whilst I cry bitter, salty tears about the sheer lack of humanity in the whole system of competitive politics.
And that really is the thing in the manifestos I've been reading - were they written by a robot? Some kind of media expert robot, that knows how to sound better than it is to those who haven't had the benefit of being taught about the tricks used to fool the general population? Just throw together the last linguistic ingredients you found at the back of the cupboard and make a yummy-looking word-pie, the kind that you scoff and then end up in the night, on the toilet, feeling like someone plunged a knife in your gut. There is nothing human about these manifestos. It's the mocking chat before a fight. Like any other business, it all seems to me like a game of shoogling the little people around a map and assigning them to red, blue or yellow.
This is the excerpt from the Labour manifesto that interests me and the most. Oh, where to begin dissecting this.
"We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco, and we will bring forward further animal welfare measures. We will campaign internationally to end illegal trading in ivory and to protect species such as polar bears, seals and bluefin tuna, as well as for an EU-wide ban on illegally logged timber, banning it domestically if this does not succeed."
Now, I wrote to Tom Harris when the animal welfare laws were being overhauled, imploring him to support the least cruel routes possible and he wrote back to me in full support of such ridiculous practises as tail docking and the use of snares. Nice. So what we've got is one big, fat, mouthy policy to "further animal welfare measures" which doesn't permeate the entire party. When it came down to it and Mr Harris exercised his power, he voted against better animal welfare. The thing of it is, I focus on this section because it interests me. But there's no evidence that this incongruity isn't a pattern across the board. We need to know what we're voting for.
Something that has been particularly annoying me about the Labour campaign is this habit they've developed of pointing to everything they've done in the past, boasting about how brilliant they are, instead of looking to the future. "We have banned foxhunting and animal testing for cosmetics and tobacco." Foxhunting was banned six years ago and animal testing for cosmetics was banned no less than TWELVE years ago, and only after some quite extreme activism. Labour didn't sit up and think this a good idea for themselves, they reacted to the severe pressure of animal rights activists and are now using it as a trump card.
"...we will bring forward further animal welfare measures." Oh, I'm convinced. Nice use of detail there. It's convenient that any number of laws could be skewed as an "animal welfare measure." You could give chickens a marginally larger cage or use one less rabbit per LD50 test and call it an "animal welfare measure."
It's nice also to say that you will campaign internationally to end the illegal ivory trade, but that's also extremely convenient. We're talking about a trade which is already being fought against so thoroughly by so many different groups, which has already been made globally illegal, but again, Labour rummage around in their pockets for something to pull out and wave around, the easiest passing bandwagon that they could jump on to prove they're concerned about animals.
Ditto the polar bears. Want to help polar bears? Help the environment and maybe we can stop the ice caps melting. Labour support the expansion of Heathrow. Now, I've spoken with the man who glued himself to the prime minister as a form of nonviolent protest relating to climate change. I was advised that the world is seriously hanging in the balance and that the expansion of Heathrow is one of the worst possible things that can be done to the environment - and from someone doing his masters researching the effects airports have on climate change, I'm inclined to pay attention.
Ditto the tuna. Concerned about big, endangered fish? Oh, no, just the ones we eat. And then, to cap it all, to exemplify the absolute, sheer stupidity of whoever bothered to try and include animals in this manifesto - timbbbeeeeerrrrr! Again a ban is proposed on something which is already illegal. I'd prefer to hear "we will enforce the system whereby illegal timber is prevented from being sold in the U.K." or "we will regulate the origins of all timber entering the U.K., thereby ensuring no illegal timber is sold." But what irritates me more so than anything else is the idea that elephants, polar bears, seals and tuna have anything at all to do with timber.
Like with so many other important issues, they touch on a few of the more obvious points, play a few cards, wiggle their shoulders intimidatingly and then relate nonhuman animals... to timber. Oh dear.
In the words of the aforementioned activist, "we are not going to wait around for politicians to catch up."
I just wish I was brave enough to sit atop the Parliament to protest climate change.
Saturday, 10 April 2010
About Animals
AGRICULTURE is different from HUNTER-GATHERING.
Hunter-gatherers arrived in Scotland, post-glaciation, 12,800 years ago.
In 12,800 years, we're not quite at the absolute disparition of suffering, but we've altered some of our views and morals to further us in this objective. Go us.
Somewhere along the line, someone influential enough is going to have to assert that, after 12,800 years, if it's possible to eat, survive and not cause suffering, maybe that's what we should be doing. Maybe torture and slaughter are no longer okay. Maybe a primitive tribe deep in the Amazon turning to hunter-gathering when McDonalds burns down their arable land to make room for burger-machines isn't comparable to an affluent Western society farming animals as though they were vegetables and churning them out for us in a lazy, disturbance-free and successful effort to make money.
As a species, we continuously mistake rationalisation for justification. It's okay for me to eat meat because a LION does it. And so forth.
As a person, I bang on about feminism, queer theory, ableism, racism, transphobia and any number of social issues, goshdarnit, I have something to say. And then it comes to the way humans treat other animals and I can't even think about it, because it's symptomatic of how absolutely fucked up we are, that we'll run a marathon to cure cancer or we'll sign up to Amnesty or we'll make Rage Against The Machine the Christmas number 1, we'll join a facebook group to prevent the death penalty for gays in Uganda, we'll march in our millions against the war in Iraq and then we'll fight to allow gay people to fight in the very same war and then we laugh at Lenny Henry and phone in with a donation and then we'll skin a fox cub or a seal pup alive to make a warm coat and we'll cut open a kitten's brain to see if a vague theory pans out and we'll throw hundreds of chicks in a wood grinder and feed them to their sisters so we can have an omelette in the morning and we'll shave mice, wrap them in tin foil and put them in an oven to see if a brand new suntan lotion works and we'll inject monkeys with their own faeces just to see what happens because we're bored students and we'll do these types of things again and again and again and again, we'll slaughter animals in this manner in their billions, causing more pain than a petition signature will ever relieve, because a whitecoat or our tastebuds or the mirror told us it was okay.
These things happen and if you're not already somewhat involved in Animal Rights, then it's safe to assume the situation is worse and wider spread than you would ever believe. And so I've just stopped thinking about it because, to me, the way humans treat other animals is a manifestation of the worst possible way in which we could act. I see every morsel of flesh in your meal as the whole being it came from. I took a step in this direction and this is where I ended up. I'm made to feel as though I'm not allowed to talk about it, everyone expects everything to be convenient and non-confrontational and I'm part of a minority, with an extreme opinion and so I have to be humble about it. I'm pigeon-holed as some kind of bigmouth, holier-than-thou, potential terrorist, brainwashed, societal annoyance. How do you begin to make people listen? How do you know where to begin talking about it? I have to somehow make my peace with the fact that I alone can't change the way humans view other animals. I used to hole myself up in my room for days, vegetating on these thoughts and now I've sort of learnt to muggle along with the idea that, while I cosy up in my duvet and put on an episode of Buffy, whinge about noisy eaters or upcoming exams, other beings are living in unnecessary and inexplicable misery. I could have been left to rot on a cage floor somewhere, absolutely trapped and forsaken by humanity, so really, I'm extremely lucky to have ended up as a human being who slots into any number of minority categories. In terms of suffering, I ain't got shit on your bog-standard laboratory rat. My body is mine, it's not powdered on anyone's crackers.
Compassion shouldn't be considered an extremity.
Hunter-gatherers arrived in Scotland, post-glaciation, 12,800 years ago.
In 12,800 years, we're not quite at the absolute disparition of suffering, but we've altered some of our views and morals to further us in this objective. Go us.
Somewhere along the line, someone influential enough is going to have to assert that, after 12,800 years, if it's possible to eat, survive and not cause suffering, maybe that's what we should be doing. Maybe torture and slaughter are no longer okay. Maybe a primitive tribe deep in the Amazon turning to hunter-gathering when McDonalds burns down their arable land to make room for burger-machines isn't comparable to an affluent Western society farming animals as though they were vegetables and churning them out for us in a lazy, disturbance-free and successful effort to make money.
As a species, we continuously mistake rationalisation for justification. It's okay for me to eat meat because a LION does it. And so forth.
As a person, I bang on about feminism, queer theory, ableism, racism, transphobia and any number of social issues, goshdarnit, I have something to say. And then it comes to the way humans treat other animals and I can't even think about it, because it's symptomatic of how absolutely fucked up we are, that we'll run a marathon to cure cancer or we'll sign up to Amnesty or we'll make Rage Against The Machine the Christmas number 1, we'll join a facebook group to prevent the death penalty for gays in Uganda, we'll march in our millions against the war in Iraq and then we'll fight to allow gay people to fight in the very same war and then we laugh at Lenny Henry and phone in with a donation and then we'll skin a fox cub or a seal pup alive to make a warm coat and we'll cut open a kitten's brain to see if a vague theory pans out and we'll throw hundreds of chicks in a wood grinder and feed them to their sisters so we can have an omelette in the morning and we'll shave mice, wrap them in tin foil and put them in an oven to see if a brand new suntan lotion works and we'll inject monkeys with their own faeces just to see what happens because we're bored students and we'll do these types of things again and again and again and again, we'll slaughter animals in this manner in their billions, causing more pain than a petition signature will ever relieve, because a whitecoat or our tastebuds or the mirror told us it was okay.
These things happen and if you're not already somewhat involved in Animal Rights, then it's safe to assume the situation is worse and wider spread than you would ever believe. And so I've just stopped thinking about it because, to me, the way humans treat other animals is a manifestation of the worst possible way in which we could act. I see every morsel of flesh in your meal as the whole being it came from. I took a step in this direction and this is where I ended up. I'm made to feel as though I'm not allowed to talk about it, everyone expects everything to be convenient and non-confrontational and I'm part of a minority, with an extreme opinion and so I have to be humble about it. I'm pigeon-holed as some kind of bigmouth, holier-than-thou, potential terrorist, brainwashed, societal annoyance. How do you begin to make people listen? How do you know where to begin talking about it? I have to somehow make my peace with the fact that I alone can't change the way humans view other animals. I used to hole myself up in my room for days, vegetating on these thoughts and now I've sort of learnt to muggle along with the idea that, while I cosy up in my duvet and put on an episode of Buffy, whinge about noisy eaters or upcoming exams, other beings are living in unnecessary and inexplicable misery. I could have been left to rot on a cage floor somewhere, absolutely trapped and forsaken by humanity, so really, I'm extremely lucky to have ended up as a human being who slots into any number of minority categories. In terms of suffering, I ain't got shit on your bog-standard laboratory rat. My body is mine, it's not powdered on anyone's crackers.
Compassion shouldn't be considered an extremity.
Sunday, 21 March 2010
On words I hear more commonly than I'd like
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Arguing with masculinists
Someone wrote to me;
"I'm sorry to say that I don't really agree with what you have to say about feminisme. Feminisme tends to view men as a very homogenious group of persons (and some feminist theories conveniently leave out the idea of male-born genderqueers or male-born women or even claim that this isn't possible at all. As if evil is incarnate in your genitals).
You are right, it is much easier to forget that other people do not have certain privilages if you do have those privilages. For instance, the privilage to express your feelings, the privilage to intimacy, the privilage to express yourself through other means than power and status, the privilage to not be seen as a sexminded monster, the privilage be weak, the privilage to be treated more gentle than people of the other sex, the privilage to inheiret your childeren after a divorce. I suppose that a lot of cis-men don't need these privilages, but there are many men, cis, trans, straight or queer who would give up all their manprivilages for those other privilages. I often feel this is even harder than for a woman to gain her manly privilages. Feminisme has gained a lot for women, but don't you think it's about time we get to postfeminisme and start gaining for other people too?"
And I replied;
I use the word feminism for lack of a better word and I must stress that feminism takes many different forms, just like any other ideology. My feminism doesn't exclude anyone based on their genitals OR their gender, only on their attitude towards female-identified or female-born people and I think the upcoming generation of new feminists would tend to agree, despite anything Gloria Steinem might have to say about it.
What you're talking about in the second paragraph is masculism/masculinism, another perfectly valid ideology where it is warranted in the exact same manner as feminism. I don't think feminist notions overrule the human condition and I thoroughly understand and empathise with the various ways in which men are limited by misconceptions of how they ought to behave. However, I'm not going to get caught up in any battle of the -isms, when the aim of both ideologies is generally seen to be equality. The feminism that I'm familiar with implores men to express their feelings, be intimate, do so by other means than power and status, choose not to be preoccupied by sex, be loving fathers, etc., rather than stating that they are incapable of those things based on their genitals. Butch lesbians in particular are often also pigeonholed into this category of "masculinity" whereby any expression of weakness or turmoil is seen to be reprehensible.
Historically speaking, however, the privilege of intimacy, gentleness, weakness, well, these wouldn't be seen as privileges - only in recent history has the idea that men are suffering through their inability to express themselves come into play. On the other hand, most of our classical novelists, poets, playwrights, musicians, artists, etc. were men, so even the idea that men are disallowed self-expression is in itself debatable.
The absolute root of my personal philosophy is this; don't cause avoidable suffering. Feminism is important to me, but it's a blip on my philosophical radar. As far as I'm concerned every single earthling, to the tiniest fly, has the right not to have suffering inflicted upon them. There is no sole demographic which I prioritise and we don't have to play moral ping-pong in deciding who deserves more of our attention. However, the rights that we fight for have to be contextual. I won't fight to start sending toddler bluebottles and bumblebees to primary school. If a man wants to assert his right to not be seen as a sexminded monster, then by heaven, I will support him. The problematics begin when men fight for their rights but refuse to relinquish the privileges they have which harm other people. The feminism that I condone is that which doesn't stamp all over peoples rights in order to gain privileges. In a global context, women are still oppressed to a far greater extent than men - there are any number of statistics and reports to prove this. Unfortunately, we can't sit down every misogynist and misandrist in the world and have them discuss what rights and privileges the counter side has which they want and ask them politely to stop being so defensive and irrational. It didn't work in the 1500's during the Querelle des Femmes. But we can, as individuals, look at everything in it's correct sociological context before engaging in kneejerk counteraction.
"I'm sorry to say that I don't really agree with what you have to say about feminisme. Feminisme tends to view men as a very homogenious group of persons (and some feminist theories conveniently leave out the idea of male-born genderqueers or male-born women or even claim that this isn't possible at all. As if evil is incarnate in your genitals).
You are right, it is much easier to forget that other people do not have certain privilages if you do have those privilages. For instance, the privilage to express your feelings, the privilage to intimacy, the privilage to express yourself through other means than power and status, the privilage to not be seen as a sexminded monster, the privilage be weak, the privilage to be treated more gentle than people of the other sex, the privilage to inheiret your childeren after a divorce. I suppose that a lot of cis-men don't need these privilages, but there are many men, cis, trans, straight or queer who would give up all their manprivilages for those other privilages. I often feel this is even harder than for a woman to gain her manly privilages. Feminisme has gained a lot for women, but don't you think it's about time we get to postfeminisme and start gaining for other people too?"
And I replied;
I use the word feminism for lack of a better word and I must stress that feminism takes many different forms, just like any other ideology. My feminism doesn't exclude anyone based on their genitals OR their gender, only on their attitude towards female-identified or female-born people and I think the upcoming generation of new feminists would tend to agree, despite anything Gloria Steinem might have to say about it.
What you're talking about in the second paragraph is masculism/masculinism, another perfectly valid ideology where it is warranted in the exact same manner as feminism. I don't think feminist notions overrule the human condition and I thoroughly understand and empathise with the various ways in which men are limited by misconceptions of how they ought to behave. However, I'm not going to get caught up in any battle of the -isms, when the aim of both ideologies is generally seen to be equality. The feminism that I'm familiar with implores men to express their feelings, be intimate, do so by other means than power and status, choose not to be preoccupied by sex, be loving fathers, etc., rather than stating that they are incapable of those things based on their genitals. Butch lesbians in particular are often also pigeonholed into this category of "masculinity" whereby any expression of weakness or turmoil is seen to be reprehensible.
Historically speaking, however, the privilege of intimacy, gentleness, weakness, well, these wouldn't be seen as privileges - only in recent history has the idea that men are suffering through their inability to express themselves come into play. On the other hand, most of our classical novelists, poets, playwrights, musicians, artists, etc. were men, so even the idea that men are disallowed self-expression is in itself debatable.
The absolute root of my personal philosophy is this; don't cause avoidable suffering. Feminism is important to me, but it's a blip on my philosophical radar. As far as I'm concerned every single earthling, to the tiniest fly, has the right not to have suffering inflicted upon them. There is no sole demographic which I prioritise and we don't have to play moral ping-pong in deciding who deserves more of our attention. However, the rights that we fight for have to be contextual. I won't fight to start sending toddler bluebottles and bumblebees to primary school. If a man wants to assert his right to not be seen as a sexminded monster, then by heaven, I will support him. The problematics begin when men fight for their rights but refuse to relinquish the privileges they have which harm other people. The feminism that I condone is that which doesn't stamp all over peoples rights in order to gain privileges. In a global context, women are still oppressed to a far greater extent than men - there are any number of statistics and reports to prove this. Unfortunately, we can't sit down every misogynist and misandrist in the world and have them discuss what rights and privileges the counter side has which they want and ask them politely to stop being so defensive and irrational. It didn't work in the 1500's during the Querelle des Femmes. But we can, as individuals, look at everything in it's correct sociological context before engaging in kneejerk counteraction.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
On having dreadlocks
At age eight, when I realised I was doomed to be different from everyone else in thought and identity for the rest of my life, I also decided I wanted to grow dreadlocks, and they have been a manifestation of that feeling of difference ever since. I hold in them my security and strength in the face of great adversity, because if someone asks me my race, I'll tell them my parents are Roma, if someone asks my orientation, I'll tell them I'm gay, if someone asks my gender, I'll tell them I'm genderqueer or androgynous, because I'm vegan, because I'm Buddhist, because I'm adopted, because I have an English accent in Scotland, because I've got scars of varying visibility running the length of my body and because I receive several intrusive questions or comments or straight-up insults every single day based on any number of these things. Because people will be polite when asking and then sneer aggressively at my response. Because people will touch my hair and my scars without asking me and challenge the clothes I wear and the way I talk and expect me to justify myself constantly. People think that because I'm different, that they can treat me exactly how they like and that I will be humble, that they have the right to go unchallenged and have their privacy respected, whereas I have to answer ridiculous questions on every facet of my identity several times a week, if not a day.
So I wear dreadlocks to manifest that I am different and there's not a part of myself that I will dull down, even if it would make things infinitely easier for me. Dreadlocks eschew social standards of beauty, they elude fashion, they renounce mimickery or emulation. For every one person who thinks dreadlocks are the shit, there are about 20 people who think they're dirty, messy rags of hair, and for every one person who will comment that my dreads look good, there are about 20 who are prepared to pull them on the bus, or chase me, or hit me in the head, or ask me if I have fleas or lice or pretend that they can see things growing on my head or talk loudly within my earshot about how disgusting I am. And that's absolutely fine by me, for as long as I can own my difference and be proud of it and allow myself to not feel restrained by societal regulations and as long as I can know that I wouldn't want to dull myself down in order to be considered more acceptable by people I don't know and wouldn't want to be friends with. My dreadlocks represent the time and patience and dedication it's taken me to get to this stage.
Contemporary dreadlocks existed first as a sign of difference, worn by people of various cultures and are associated with overwhelming spirituality, anti-materialism and religious thought. For me, the absolute core of the wearing of dreadlocks is, and should be, individuality and maybe even purity. The intrinsic meaning is difference and every set of dreadlocks has it's own character and has required it's own specific maintenance to get them to that stage. Nowadays, I hear more and more the idea that it's okay to get dreads for the sheer aesthetics of it, the "fashion" of it, and I am absolutely opposed to this idea, in the way that I am opposed to the wearing of Che Guevara tshirts for fashion, the wearing of Palestine scarves for fashion, etc. It's one thing enjoying the delights other cultures can provide, for instance, I love Japanese food. It's an entirely different thing to appropriate from other cultures. When you see someone wearing a Palestine scarf and think, "Fuck me, that looks good, I'm going to get me one of them" you're going to, in your ignorance, leave an entire group of people marginalised. It's effectively saying that your right to look good is as important as their right to have their political beliefs represented. You leave yourself indistinguishable from those who need their voice to be heard. If someone asks you why you're wearing this big scarf and you reply that you simply like the way it looks, that response will resound in the asker of the question and they won't feel the need to ask the question again. In your ignorance, you have perpetuated ignorance and silenced the minority, when they need to be shouting louder. It's the same with dreadlocks. If you wear dreadlocks for fashion and voice that you are wearing them for fashion and do not show any indication that you understand their various origins, that will impress upon whoever hears it. Myself and whoever else cultivates dreadlocks as a manifestation of difference and a show of strength, we will be merged seamlessly with those who wear dreadlocks for shits and giggles and the importance of the strength we acquire through wearing them will again be undermined.
So I wear dreadlocks to manifest that I am different and there's not a part of myself that I will dull down, even if it would make things infinitely easier for me. Dreadlocks eschew social standards of beauty, they elude fashion, they renounce mimickery or emulation. For every one person who thinks dreadlocks are the shit, there are about 20 people who think they're dirty, messy rags of hair, and for every one person who will comment that my dreads look good, there are about 20 who are prepared to pull them on the bus, or chase me, or hit me in the head, or ask me if I have fleas or lice or pretend that they can see things growing on my head or talk loudly within my earshot about how disgusting I am. And that's absolutely fine by me, for as long as I can own my difference and be proud of it and allow myself to not feel restrained by societal regulations and as long as I can know that I wouldn't want to dull myself down in order to be considered more acceptable by people I don't know and wouldn't want to be friends with. My dreadlocks represent the time and patience and dedication it's taken me to get to this stage.
Contemporary dreadlocks existed first as a sign of difference, worn by people of various cultures and are associated with overwhelming spirituality, anti-materialism and religious thought. For me, the absolute core of the wearing of dreadlocks is, and should be, individuality and maybe even purity. The intrinsic meaning is difference and every set of dreadlocks has it's own character and has required it's own specific maintenance to get them to that stage. Nowadays, I hear more and more the idea that it's okay to get dreads for the sheer aesthetics of it, the "fashion" of it, and I am absolutely opposed to this idea, in the way that I am opposed to the wearing of Che Guevara tshirts for fashion, the wearing of Palestine scarves for fashion, etc. It's one thing enjoying the delights other cultures can provide, for instance, I love Japanese food. It's an entirely different thing to appropriate from other cultures. When you see someone wearing a Palestine scarf and think, "Fuck me, that looks good, I'm going to get me one of them" you're going to, in your ignorance, leave an entire group of people marginalised. It's effectively saying that your right to look good is as important as their right to have their political beliefs represented. You leave yourself indistinguishable from those who need their voice to be heard. If someone asks you why you're wearing this big scarf and you reply that you simply like the way it looks, that response will resound in the asker of the question and they won't feel the need to ask the question again. In your ignorance, you have perpetuated ignorance and silenced the minority, when they need to be shouting louder. It's the same with dreadlocks. If you wear dreadlocks for fashion and voice that you are wearing them for fashion and do not show any indication that you understand their various origins, that will impress upon whoever hears it. Myself and whoever else cultivates dreadlocks as a manifestation of difference and a show of strength, we will be merged seamlessly with those who wear dreadlocks for shits and giggles and the importance of the strength we acquire through wearing them will again be undermined.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
On British culture (sometimes)
I'm so fucking sick of hearing about Jade Goody.
I can't express how much I do not want Jade to die of cancer, largely because I don't want anyone to die of cancer, or of anything else. I'm just thoroughly disappointed in Britain (as I usually am these days) for making a role model of this nasty little woman.
She is famous for being famous, rode into celebrity through a reality TV programme (she didn't even win) and milked it for all it was worth, more so than any other individual who appeared on the programme. She was dropped from an anti-bullying campaign because she was a nasty, cliquey, racist bully on the programme. She's Britain's Paris Hilton. She has spent the last 4 years doing everything within her power to keep the attention on her and is worth £4m as a result.
I can actually understand why she'd want to rake in as much money as possible at the moment to support her sons after she's gone, but my point is that amidst all this Jade Goody sudden-praise, everyone forgets that thousands of good people in similar situations die with very little to offer their family, very little to comfort them, without the moral support of about a gazillion celebrities. They don't get wedding tents, they get hospital beds.
I'm even angering myself by wasting time typing about her, but I've just reminded myself of the time when the House of Commons actually took the time to discuss what needed to be done about Jade Goody when she totally shattered UK relations with India with her whole racist fiasco.
So basically, it's not only the media wasting their time talking about this nasty piece of work when there are actual things going on the in the world, it's our government as well.
MORE COMPLAINTS.
Further on the general state of the UK, this morning, the Metro put four tall, leggy girls in kilts, posed all sexy-like on the front of the newspaper, to advertise what? Golf. I took the newspaper and I wrote "Sex Sells... ...Golf" on it and pointed it out to a girl who is in my class. I complained to her that people are actually stupid enough to fall for this anti-feminist rubbish, to which she replied, "Yeah, and they haven't even got nice legs."
Something else which is ridiculous is the proposal to raise the drinking age to 21. Now, apparently this wouldn't affect anyone who is over 18 now, there'd be a rollover type thing, so it wouldn't affect me personally. What I do care about, however, is the idea that it would become criminal for someone who is legally an adult to make their own decision about whether or not to consume alcohol and whether or not they can do so responsibly. I admit Britain has an extremely complex drinking problem, but the idea that those who create the problem are mostly 18-21 is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who has waited in the taxi queue at Central Station at 3.30am know that that is ridiculous - we all know the amazingly diverse variety of arseholes who make up the UK's irresponsible drinkers. Infantilising and criminalising our youth, in transparent, brown-nosing imitation of North America is basically going to solve fuck-all.
AND, my final complaint of the day. There is another proposal, to include oral and tactile sex to within the definition of sex, thereby criminalising under-16's who have oral/tactile sex, even if they're not having penetrative sex. So, instead of expanding sex education lessons to include actual things (my guidance teacher said, "no one here looks gay so we're not going to do that bit" then put on the A-Z of sex video which showed a boy pretending to give a lick out to an ice cream.), they're just going to ban any kind of sexual contact altogether. Protecting youth is one thing, but this is just another case of infantilising and criminalising young people and is a result of pure societal discomfort. Parents don't want to broach the topic of their teenage offspring being sexual beings, so they just ban everything sexual that they can think of. Sheer discomfort. I suppose next they'll ban condoms, then they'll ban kissing, lest it send out the message that sex is acceptable. Did you know that there was actual OPPOSITION to the HPV immunisation offered to teenage girls a year or so ago, because it might send out the message that sex is acceptable?
Bloody ridiculous culture.
I can't express how much I do not want Jade to die of cancer, largely because I don't want anyone to die of cancer, or of anything else. I'm just thoroughly disappointed in Britain (as I usually am these days) for making a role model of this nasty little woman.
She is famous for being famous, rode into celebrity through a reality TV programme (she didn't even win) and milked it for all it was worth, more so than any other individual who appeared on the programme. She was dropped from an anti-bullying campaign because she was a nasty, cliquey, racist bully on the programme. She's Britain's Paris Hilton. She has spent the last 4 years doing everything within her power to keep the attention on her and is worth £4m as a result.
I can actually understand why she'd want to rake in as much money as possible at the moment to support her sons after she's gone, but my point is that amidst all this Jade Goody sudden-praise, everyone forgets that thousands of good people in similar situations die with very little to offer their family, very little to comfort them, without the moral support of about a gazillion celebrities. They don't get wedding tents, they get hospital beds.
I'm even angering myself by wasting time typing about her, but I've just reminded myself of the time when the House of Commons actually took the time to discuss what needed to be done about Jade Goody when she totally shattered UK relations with India with her whole racist fiasco.
So basically, it's not only the media wasting their time talking about this nasty piece of work when there are actual things going on the in the world, it's our government as well.
MORE COMPLAINTS.
Further on the general state of the UK, this morning, the Metro put four tall, leggy girls in kilts, posed all sexy-like on the front of the newspaper, to advertise what? Golf. I took the newspaper and I wrote "Sex Sells... ...Golf" on it and pointed it out to a girl who is in my class. I complained to her that people are actually stupid enough to fall for this anti-feminist rubbish, to which she replied, "Yeah, and they haven't even got nice legs."
Something else which is ridiculous is the proposal to raise the drinking age to 21. Now, apparently this wouldn't affect anyone who is over 18 now, there'd be a rollover type thing, so it wouldn't affect me personally. What I do care about, however, is the idea that it would become criminal for someone who is legally an adult to make their own decision about whether or not to consume alcohol and whether or not they can do so responsibly. I admit Britain has an extremely complex drinking problem, but the idea that those who create the problem are mostly 18-21 is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who has waited in the taxi queue at Central Station at 3.30am know that that is ridiculous - we all know the amazingly diverse variety of arseholes who make up the UK's irresponsible drinkers. Infantilising and criminalising our youth, in transparent, brown-nosing imitation of North America is basically going to solve fuck-all.
AND, my final complaint of the day. There is another proposal, to include oral and tactile sex to within the definition of sex, thereby criminalising under-16's who have oral/tactile sex, even if they're not having penetrative sex. So, instead of expanding sex education lessons to include actual things (my guidance teacher said, "no one here looks gay so we're not going to do that bit" then put on the A-Z of sex video which showed a boy pretending to give a lick out to an ice cream.), they're just going to ban any kind of sexual contact altogether. Protecting youth is one thing, but this is just another case of infantilising and criminalising young people and is a result of pure societal discomfort. Parents don't want to broach the topic of their teenage offspring being sexual beings, so they just ban everything sexual that they can think of. Sheer discomfort. I suppose next they'll ban condoms, then they'll ban kissing, lest it send out the message that sex is acceptable. Did you know that there was actual OPPOSITION to the HPV immunisation offered to teenage girls a year or so ago, because it might send out the message that sex is acceptable?
Bloody ridiculous culture.
Sunday, 1 March 2009
Gender 101
I've decided it's high time to write a list of definitions which I've found people are often confused by, or more often not even aware of. This blog deals with the oft-forgotten "T" in "LGBTQ" (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer).
It took me a looong time to write this, so if I get any hatin' on it, I'll simply delete your comment. Bwaha!
SEX
This word is used to refer to physical anatomy. A person's sex is determined by the shape of their genitals, their chromosomes, and whether they produce sperm or eggs. Consequently, the word "sex" is correctly used in a solely biological context.
INTERSEX
A person who is intersex is someone who cannot be biologically determined as exclusively male or female. This is determined by the presence of either or all of the following; ambiguous genitalia, ovotestes, atypical chromosomes, etc. Intersexuality has so many variations that I can't include them all in a small summary.
A person who is intersex is not a hermaphrodite. Hermaphroditism requires that one is completely biologically male AND female. There is no confirmed record of true hermaphroditism in humans. An intersex person may or may not be assigned a sex role and may or may not choose a masculine or feminine gender identity.
Controversially, the most common management of intersexuality is surgery performed on intersex babies to make them appear more typically male or female. This is problematic largely because it means the intersex person cannot make a decision for themselves. Such surgery is also difficult to reverse if the person grows to find that their gender identity is socially incongruent with their assigned genitalia. Moreover, in 20 to 30% of cases, sexual sensation is lost as a result of this surgery. Some intersex people are never made aware of their intersexuality and some only as a result of questioning their sex role or gender identity.
GENDER/GENDER IDENTITY/SEX ROLE
The word "gender" originally referred only to grammatical gender, like that found in many European languages. It was claimed by feminists, in conjunction with the assertion that a woman is not born a woman; she learns to be a woman.
To put it crudely, sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears.
Upon emerging from the uterus and having their genitalia surveyed by a doctor, a baby is assigned a sex role. This means that if you have a vagina, you're proclaimed to be a girl and if you have a penis, you're proclaimed to be a boy. Social conditioning begins at the beginning, in spite of the fact that at this stage, babies are entirely genderless.
Without expensive surgery, a person cannot change their physical anatomy. Outwith that, every aspect of presentation can be chosen - what you wear, where and if you shave, where and if you wear make-up, which body parts you display and how you display them, what activities you take part in, the words you use and the way you act. These things are classified using the binary gender system - masculinity and femininity. Socially, masculinity is expected of people who are biologically male and femininity is expected of people who are biologically female. For example, if you are masculine in your appearance and mannerisms, it will likely be assumed that you have a penis. Whether you are masculine or feminine is also an indicator of how another person is likely to interact with you - many people are uncomfortable interacting with someone whose appearance is androgynous, because men and women are treated differently.
However, just like everything else, all aspects of femininity and masculinity are taught from birth. Boys are given cars, guns and action figures while girls are given dolls, make-up, etc. In contemporary society, the blurring of binary gender codes is accepted to a very limited degree. Certainly more so than pre-feminism, but not yet to the extent that all people are given free rein over their gender identity. A boy wearing eyeliner and nail polish is still found questionable.
In summary, your sex role is the role expected of you based on your appearance and mannerisms. Your gender identity is the gender you feel you are. Neither can be dictated by physical anatomy.
CISGENDER
A cisgender person is one whose gender identity matches what is socially expected of them based on their physical anatomy. For example, if you have a vagina and call yourself a woman, you're cisgender.
TRANSGENDER/TRANSSEXUAL
Now prepare yourself to wrap your head around this...
Transgender, in it's traditional sense, is a word used to describe people who are transitioning or who have transitioned from one gender to another. A female-to-male transgender person is a transman while a male-to-female transgender person is a transwoman. A person's gender has absolutely no bearing on their sexual orientation. For example, a transwoman may be gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, asexual or any other orientation. A transwoman who identifies as a lesbian is attracted to women. A heterosexual transman would also be attracted to women!
In other usage, transgender is a catch-all umbrella term used to describe anybody whose gender identity doesn't match what is socially expected of them based on their physical anatomy. It encompasses a vast array of gender identities, including but not limited to; genderqueer, genderfucked, genderless/agender, androgyne, neuter, birls, bois, third genders, two-spirit, hijra, transmen, transwomen, boydykes, trannyfags, drag kings, drag queens, gender non-conformists, etc.
A transgender person may or may not decide to have full sexual reassignment surgery. A transsexual person is one who has had, is currently having, or plans to have sexual reassignment surgery. A person can be transgender without being transsexual, but only in extremely rare cases would a transsexual person not also be transgender.
There are a number of options for transgendered people who wish to medically alter their appearance. Transmen can take testosterone, which deepens the voice, extends the clitoris, causes hair growth, adjusts body mass, among other things. Transwomen can take estrogen, which causes breasts to develop and adjusts body mass, among other things. Transmen can have top surgery which involves removing the breasts and reshaping the chest with male contours, or in the case of transwomen, breast enlargements. Transwomen can have laser hair removal and voice coaching to raise their voice. Bottom surgery refers to genital surgery, which can be done in stages or all at once. All these procedures are extremely expensive and results vary in efficacy. For transmen in particular, options for bottom surgery leave a lot to be desired and a lot which can go wrong. Many transmen choose to take testosterone, undergo top surgery and a hysterectomy, but never undergo phalloplasty (the construction of a penis).
All these potential medical options often render it almost impossible to identify someone who is transgendered simply by looking at them, especially if they have been taking hormones. For an example of an (extremely cool and attractive) female-to-male transman who has had top surgery and taken hormones, go to my videos and watch "The Life" by Katastrophe.
Many transgender people actively choose not to medically or surgically alter their bodies because they don't believe their gender is or should be dictated by their sex. A transman may not believe that he is less of a man simply because he doesn't have a penis, while a transwoman wouldn't necessarily believe that she is less of woman because she does have a penis. However, outlooks of transpeople vary in the extreme and while some may be comfortable, others may feel literally tortured inside their bodies, while still others wish to change some aspects of their bodies, but not others.
Transgender and transsexual people are distinctly different from transvestites. Transvestites are primarily heterosexual men who dress in traditionally female clothing, for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have a sexual motive (sexually motivated transvestism is called transvestic fetishism). They are not in transition, nor do they desire to live as another gender 100% of the time.
(edited section)
In addition, I'd hate to in any way imply that being transgender or transsexual is a simple social or medical transition with no repercussions. It involves a complete overhaul; new passport, new birth certificate, new drivers license. It's expensive because it's not always covered by medical insurance. Transpeople are often rejected by family, friends and colleagues. They become the subject of derision and transphobia. Transphobia is common, even within the supposedly enlightened gay and bisexual community. Institutional transphobia means many transpeople are unemployed. Something as simple as using a public toilet becomes a massive deal. Non- or pre-operative transpeople are often obliged, by law, to use binary gendered public spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms, which "match" their physical anatomy.
A transgender person cannot happily be conditioned back into their original sex role. The only successful management of transgenderism so far is to allow the person to transition to the gender they identify with.
Despite the fact that transpeople make up only a tiny percentage of the population, more transpeople are murdered as a result of discrimination than all other minority demographics put together.
GENDERQUEER
This is one of the most common transgender identities, after ftm and mtf and is an umbrella term, which means supplementary phrases may be used by the individual to expand on their genderqueer identity. For example, being genderqueer and transmasculine, or genderqueer and also genderless.
A person who is genderqueer may consider themselves to be both a man and a woman or neither a man nor a woman. Their gender may fluctuate, meaning sometimes they feel and act masculine and other times, they feel and act feminine. They may consider that none of their actions or presentations can be qualified as either masculine or feminine, or perhaps only some of the time they can. Their identity may be static or it may be fluid. They may appear feminine, but act masculine, or appear masculine but act feminine. They may appear and act entirely androgynous. They may purposely play with their presentation to confuse people and subvert binary gender. Or they may remain relatively consistent in their presentation.
You cannot call somebody genderqueer unless you have already ascertained that they identify as such. Not everyone who doesn't appear to conform to binary gender rules will identify as genderqueer.
PRONOUNS (A Matter Of Respect)
Basically, if you meet someone who identifies themself to you as a woman, regardless of her appearance, you should use the female pronoun in reference to her - she, her, hers.
If you meet someone who identifies themself to you as a man, you should use the male pronoun in reference to him - he, him, his.
Genderqueer people may use any one or any mix of the following pronouns - he, she, sie, xe, ze, zie, they (singular) or it or they may choose to simply use their name.
If you're uncertain of what pronoun a person would prefer you to use for them - ask! It's a lot politer and less awkward than trying and getting it wrong.
The pronoun "it" is used only by those people who have carefully selected it for themselves. This pronoun should not be used freely in reference to transgender people because, for those who haven't selected it, it's extremely offensive.
A Thorough Well Done to anyone who read all the way through this.
It took me a looong time to write this, so if I get any hatin' on it, I'll simply delete your comment. Bwaha!
SEX
This word is used to refer to physical anatomy. A person's sex is determined by the shape of their genitals, their chromosomes, and whether they produce sperm or eggs. Consequently, the word "sex" is correctly used in a solely biological context.
INTERSEX
A person who is intersex is someone who cannot be biologically determined as exclusively male or female. This is determined by the presence of either or all of the following; ambiguous genitalia, ovotestes, atypical chromosomes, etc. Intersexuality has so many variations that I can't include them all in a small summary.
A person who is intersex is not a hermaphrodite. Hermaphroditism requires that one is completely biologically male AND female. There is no confirmed record of true hermaphroditism in humans. An intersex person may or may not be assigned a sex role and may or may not choose a masculine or feminine gender identity.
Controversially, the most common management of intersexuality is surgery performed on intersex babies to make them appear more typically male or female. This is problematic largely because it means the intersex person cannot make a decision for themselves. Such surgery is also difficult to reverse if the person grows to find that their gender identity is socially incongruent with their assigned genitalia. Moreover, in 20 to 30% of cases, sexual sensation is lost as a result of this surgery. Some intersex people are never made aware of their intersexuality and some only as a result of questioning their sex role or gender identity.
GENDER/GENDER IDENTITY/SEX ROLE
The word "gender" originally referred only to grammatical gender, like that found in many European languages. It was claimed by feminists, in conjunction with the assertion that a woman is not born a woman; she learns to be a woman.
To put it crudely, sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears.
Upon emerging from the uterus and having their genitalia surveyed by a doctor, a baby is assigned a sex role. This means that if you have a vagina, you're proclaimed to be a girl and if you have a penis, you're proclaimed to be a boy. Social conditioning begins at the beginning, in spite of the fact that at this stage, babies are entirely genderless.
Without expensive surgery, a person cannot change their physical anatomy. Outwith that, every aspect of presentation can be chosen - what you wear, where and if you shave, where and if you wear make-up, which body parts you display and how you display them, what activities you take part in, the words you use and the way you act. These things are classified using the binary gender system - masculinity and femininity. Socially, masculinity is expected of people who are biologically male and femininity is expected of people who are biologically female. For example, if you are masculine in your appearance and mannerisms, it will likely be assumed that you have a penis. Whether you are masculine or feminine is also an indicator of how another person is likely to interact with you - many people are uncomfortable interacting with someone whose appearance is androgynous, because men and women are treated differently.
However, just like everything else, all aspects of femininity and masculinity are taught from birth. Boys are given cars, guns and action figures while girls are given dolls, make-up, etc. In contemporary society, the blurring of binary gender codes is accepted to a very limited degree. Certainly more so than pre-feminism, but not yet to the extent that all people are given free rein over their gender identity. A boy wearing eyeliner and nail polish is still found questionable.
In summary, your sex role is the role expected of you based on your appearance and mannerisms. Your gender identity is the gender you feel you are. Neither can be dictated by physical anatomy.
CISGENDER
A cisgender person is one whose gender identity matches what is socially expected of them based on their physical anatomy. For example, if you have a vagina and call yourself a woman, you're cisgender.
TRANSGENDER/TRANSSEXUAL
Now prepare yourself to wrap your head around this...
Transgender, in it's traditional sense, is a word used to describe people who are transitioning or who have transitioned from one gender to another. A female-to-male transgender person is a transman while a male-to-female transgender person is a transwoman. A person's gender has absolutely no bearing on their sexual orientation. For example, a transwoman may be gay, straight, bisexual, pansexual, asexual or any other orientation. A transwoman who identifies as a lesbian is attracted to women. A heterosexual transman would also be attracted to women!
In other usage, transgender is a catch-all umbrella term used to describe anybody whose gender identity doesn't match what is socially expected of them based on their physical anatomy. It encompasses a vast array of gender identities, including but not limited to; genderqueer, genderfucked, genderless/agender, androgyne, neuter, birls, bois, third genders, two-spirit, hijra, transmen, transwomen, boydykes, trannyfags, drag kings, drag queens, gender non-conformists, etc.
A transgender person may or may not decide to have full sexual reassignment surgery. A transsexual person is one who has had, is currently having, or plans to have sexual reassignment surgery. A person can be transgender without being transsexual, but only in extremely rare cases would a transsexual person not also be transgender.
There are a number of options for transgendered people who wish to medically alter their appearance. Transmen can take testosterone, which deepens the voice, extends the clitoris, causes hair growth, adjusts body mass, among other things. Transwomen can take estrogen, which causes breasts to develop and adjusts body mass, among other things. Transmen can have top surgery which involves removing the breasts and reshaping the chest with male contours, or in the case of transwomen, breast enlargements. Transwomen can have laser hair removal and voice coaching to raise their voice. Bottom surgery refers to genital surgery, which can be done in stages or all at once. All these procedures are extremely expensive and results vary in efficacy. For transmen in particular, options for bottom surgery leave a lot to be desired and a lot which can go wrong. Many transmen choose to take testosterone, undergo top surgery and a hysterectomy, but never undergo phalloplasty (the construction of a penis).
All these potential medical options often render it almost impossible to identify someone who is transgendered simply by looking at them, especially if they have been taking hormones. For an example of an (extremely cool and attractive) female-to-male transman who has had top surgery and taken hormones, go to my videos and watch "The Life" by Katastrophe.
Many transgender people actively choose not to medically or surgically alter their bodies because they don't believe their gender is or should be dictated by their sex. A transman may not believe that he is less of a man simply because he doesn't have a penis, while a transwoman wouldn't necessarily believe that she is less of woman because she does have a penis. However, outlooks of transpeople vary in the extreme and while some may be comfortable, others may feel literally tortured inside their bodies, while still others wish to change some aspects of their bodies, but not others.
Transgender and transsexual people are distinctly different from transvestites. Transvestites are primarily heterosexual men who dress in traditionally female clothing, for a variety of reasons, which may or may not have a sexual motive (sexually motivated transvestism is called transvestic fetishism). They are not in transition, nor do they desire to live as another gender 100% of the time.
(edited section)
In addition, I'd hate to in any way imply that being transgender or transsexual is a simple social or medical transition with no repercussions. It involves a complete overhaul; new passport, new birth certificate, new drivers license. It's expensive because it's not always covered by medical insurance. Transpeople are often rejected by family, friends and colleagues. They become the subject of derision and transphobia. Transphobia is common, even within the supposedly enlightened gay and bisexual community. Institutional transphobia means many transpeople are unemployed. Something as simple as using a public toilet becomes a massive deal. Non- or pre-operative transpeople are often obliged, by law, to use binary gendered public spaces, such as toilets and changing rooms, which "match" their physical anatomy.
A transgender person cannot happily be conditioned back into their original sex role. The only successful management of transgenderism so far is to allow the person to transition to the gender they identify with.
Despite the fact that transpeople make up only a tiny percentage of the population, more transpeople are murdered as a result of discrimination than all other minority demographics put together.
GENDERQUEER
This is one of the most common transgender identities, after ftm and mtf and is an umbrella term, which means supplementary phrases may be used by the individual to expand on their genderqueer identity. For example, being genderqueer and transmasculine, or genderqueer and also genderless.
A person who is genderqueer may consider themselves to be both a man and a woman or neither a man nor a woman. Their gender may fluctuate, meaning sometimes they feel and act masculine and other times, they feel and act feminine. They may consider that none of their actions or presentations can be qualified as either masculine or feminine, or perhaps only some of the time they can. Their identity may be static or it may be fluid. They may appear feminine, but act masculine, or appear masculine but act feminine. They may appear and act entirely androgynous. They may purposely play with their presentation to confuse people and subvert binary gender. Or they may remain relatively consistent in their presentation.
You cannot call somebody genderqueer unless you have already ascertained that they identify as such. Not everyone who doesn't appear to conform to binary gender rules will identify as genderqueer.
PRONOUNS (A Matter Of Respect)
Basically, if you meet someone who identifies themself to you as a woman, regardless of her appearance, you should use the female pronoun in reference to her - she, her, hers.
If you meet someone who identifies themself to you as a man, you should use the male pronoun in reference to him - he, him, his.
Genderqueer people may use any one or any mix of the following pronouns - he, she, sie, xe, ze, zie, they (singular) or it or they may choose to simply use their name.
If you're uncertain of what pronoun a person would prefer you to use for them - ask! It's a lot politer and less awkward than trying and getting it wrong.
The pronoun "it" is used only by those people who have carefully selected it for themselves. This pronoun should not be used freely in reference to transgender people because, for those who haven't selected it, it's extremely offensive.
A Thorough Well Done to anyone who read all the way through this.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
On Meat Eating
I'm just going to number the sections, in case you want to skip to whatever most interests you.
1. Edits
2. Why think about meat eating
3. Why meat eating isn't natural and why it doesn't matter if it's natural anyway
4. The suffering of farmed animals
5. Morals and animal intelligence vs. emotion
6. Meat eating and the environment
7. A word on health
8. Extra notes on veganism
9. A video on the subject
1
Edit:
1. I suppose if I was writing this now, I'd be writing it in a less accusatory manner. However, every now and again, I read through it and even though I've found a way to be less angry at everyone, I still believe everything I've written. I realise that everyone has different routes to morality which manifest in different ways but how anyone can make a claim that their enjoyment of each individual portion of meat justifies the suffering and death of each individual consumed is still far beyond me and I have no desire to reach it.
2. It may be interesting for you to note that the recommended amount of meat which should be eaten in a week, by those who choose to eat meat, is about the size of cigarette packet. About two thirds of a burger. The consumption of meat is an issue in itself, but the overconsumption of meat is absolutely insane.
3. These writings aren't a game of Jenga. You can't deconstruct one of my points and expect the whole thing to crumble. You can argue that humans are omnivores 'til you're blue in the face and I'll still tell you that eating animals is unnecessary.
Please read in depth before messaging me.
I don't care if meat is tasty and I don't care if you like blood, guts and gore. Neither are good arguments and you'll genuinely look completely pathetic if you use them as such.
2
Right now, if you eat meat, you're part of a significant majority. Chances are, you haven't thought about your actions extensively and haven't felt the need to, because there's safety in numbers. It seems, at first glance, that meat eating MUST be fine, it MUST be natural and morally acceptable, otherwise so many people wouldn't do it. It's easy to assume that because so many people eat meat, someone must have thought it through enough to have found a justification for it, so why should you bother thinking it through yourself?
3
Whether or not meat eating is NATURAL is 100% irrelevant, because meat eating is UNNECESSARY. But let's discuss that since it seems to interest everyone so much.
Humans are primates. We, like other primates, have incisors and canines in our mouths, but these aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to eating meat, no matter how often meat eaters throw it in the faces of vegans and vegetarians, as though it means something. Our teeth are not designed for killing and devouring animals with, they are designed as a defense mechanism. Our teeth are far smaller in comparison to those of omnivores and carnivores. We don't have teeth like sheep or cows, because we're not meant to be eating grass, we're meant to be eating fruit and veg. There is more than one kind of herbivore. Physically, none of us are capable of chasing and killing a cow or a pig with just our bodies in the wild, nor do we have the instinct to, so why do so in a factory? Generally, we don't walk through country lanes, see cows and want to rip them to shreds. And when it comes to our innards, our intestines are that of a herbivores - twice as long as any omnivores, and four times as long as any carnivores. We digest our food slowly, unlike omnivores and carnivores, and our food requires extensive chewing, whereas omnivores just break it up into smaller bits, and carnivores more often that not swallow their food whole. On top of that, we do not have the enzymes in our stomach to cope with digesting raw meat, without first cooking it. Meat is not essential for our survival in any way, it does not provide us with anything we can't get from other, non-sentient sources. There is ONE vitamin that is found in meat that isn't generally found in plants, and that is Vitamin B12. If we were still living naturally, we'd get our B12 by eating soil and our own faeces - so I'd like to stick to my marmite and fortified cereals without criticism, cheers.
Have a ponder at the following chart -
I, for one, have been a vegetarian since I was 7 and a vegan since I was 17 and I have remained in largely excellent health, with minimal difficulties, this whole time. I might have rushed to answer to the argument that meat consumption is a necessity for human health and survival, but I find that it is often the closest argument to hand for meat eaters arguing with me. It is a fact that humans do not need to eat meat and I find it a bit silly when people try to tell me otherwise. If I could raise an eyebrow, I'd raise an eyebrow and say, "I haven't had a mouthful of meat since I was making wings out of paper in primary school and I'm still here."
4
So you see that even when the argument is stripped down to it's bare roots, even then, meat eating is not natural for humans. So how is it justified to debeak chickens, stuff them in cages or huge sheds where they can't turn around, pump them full of steroids until they can't stand up, beat them to death with crowbars, throw them against walls, jump up and down on them, keep them in cages where they get wounds on their feet that eventually grow right around the bars on the cage floors? All this and then an ugly death where they are hung upside down and dipped, while still conscious, into tubs of boiling water. Unwanted baby chicks are thrown into wood chippers. Justify that. Newborn calves are torn away from their continuously impregnated mothers, and made deliberately anaemic, so that the resulting veal is the right colour to fetch the highest price on the market. All baby animals are castrated without anaesthetic and have various bits of their bodies cut off in the same manner - tails, horns, ears. The industry says that 1 cent per bullet costs too much, so that death is never quick - like chickens, they are hung upside down, they have their throats slit and they are left hanging there, until they have been "bled out" - I won't go into detail about the other animal produce industries here, but rest assured that the abuse doesn't stop at the meat industry.
If you eat meat, that sends a message to the industry that you want it. They kill to meet a quota, they don't kill at random. It's supply and demand. They kill because by consuming meat, you're asking them to.
If we have the technology to survive without inflicting pain and death, there is no reason not to do so. Technology benefits us in many ways, so why not allow it to benefit us and animals when it comes to food.
5
Animals killing animals does NOT making humans killing animals okay, because, yknow, I'm not a fucking lion and neither is anyone here. We have to draw the correct lines in the correct places. We are NOT similar to most other animals when it comes to diet, except for primates, so we can't claim that as our argument for eating meat. (And my pre-emptive argument against anyone who says that if we don't breed animals for meat, those animals will die out is; Yes. And all the animals we DON'T eat are all DEAD.)
However, we are similar to animals in other ways. We have to take animals into consideration when evaluating our morals because animals are capable of suffering to the same extent as humans, and like humans, animals also strive to avoid unnecessary suffering. Animals feel emotions in the same way humans do, and anyone who has ever had a companion animal would have a difficult time denying that. We have to put it into context. If a dog isn't as intelligent as a human, that's fine. Let's not award that dog a scholarship, let's not allow that dog to drive a car. But a dog can feel as much pain as a human, so that dogs rights to not have pain inflicted upon him or her have to be taken into consideration. The fact that a dog is not a human and cannot verbalise his or her pain in the way a human can, does not lessen the pain that he or she feels.
In the same way, for the cow, pig, or chicken, being apologetic about meat eating and having moments of weakness, where you just have to devour some flesh isn't good enough either. These are just tastebuds and an easily otherwise-satisfied appetite. For the creature consumed, there is no choice but birth, suffering and death.
We have to learn from the mistakes of the past. When Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her books about feminism, retaliations were written by men, claiming that if these principles could be applied to women, then they could also be applied to animals, and so her claims simply MUST be preposterous. Yes, there was once a time when women suffered at the hands of men, and black people suffered at the hands of white people in the same way animals suffer at the hands of people now. The word applicable here is OPPRESSION. The comparisons are staring us in the face, and if you care about equality, you can't brush aside the rights of animals. Gynaecological surgery was pioneered by a white man operating on the genitals of black women, without anaesthesia, because he said that black women felt less pain. We NEED to learn from the mistakes of the past and stop doing whatever is CONVENIENT, in favour of doing what is right.
6
Meat eating, each year, causes anywhere between 14% and 25% of carbon emissions - quick, turn the LIGHT OFF, that'll stop the ice caps melting.
Meat eating isn't just bad for the animals - it has horrendous effects on the environment as well. Here are some fun facts; Right now, in Britain 95% of farmland is used to grow grain for animal feed. If the USA alone reduced its meat intake by 10%, there would be enough grain left over to feed the whole of the third world. It take 16 pounds of grain to produce only 1 pound of animal flesh for consumption. It simply doesn't make any sense at all. Waste from the animals pollutes land and rivers, while methane from cows contributes to global warming. From an acre of land, you can get 60 kg of beef, or you could get 20,000 kg of potatoes. Eating meat is, simply put, inefficient. It's convenient for you, but causes irreparable damage to the environment. For example, the rainforest is now being cut down at the rate of one acre per minute to make way for cattle, so meat eaters can have their fucking big macs. 20 times more land is needed to feed a meat eater than is needed to feed a vegetarian. Half of all water used in the western world is used for animals, either to drink, or to irrigate crops of animal feed.
7
And then theres your health. Meat eaters are at a much higher risk of having high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, various cancers, heart disease, alzheimers, impotence, asthma and a bad immune system. As a vegan, it's basically a given that I won't have to worry about suffering a heart attack.
8
Extra notes, on veganism;
Cows don't produce milk at random, this is the thing. They have to be continuously impregnated in order to produce milk. When the calf is born, they are taken straight away from their mother, and raised for veal, forced to be anaemic so that the veal is the right colour. The separation also causes ALOT of distress for the mother cow, they've been noted to return again and again to the spot where the calf was taken from them. Even if the calves aren't raised for veal, they are still sold to be raised for beef and they still have to be separated from their mothers. It's not nice at any turn you take. The machines used to milk the lactating cows are also damaging to the cows, they get ulcers on their udders and there is usually a quantity of pus in every bucket of milk as a result.
As for chickens, well well. Laying chickens are kept five to a cage the size of a microwave. They are sometimes starved and kept without light for a few days at a time, and then fed up again, as this make egg production faster. They get wounds on their feet from the cage bars, and their feet sometimes heal up around the bars so that they can't move (not that they were able to to begin with). And of course, when laying chickens die, they have to be replaced. Male chicks can't lay eggs, so if there is a surplus of male chicks, those male chicks (there is no joke here, this is honesty) are ground up and made into chicken feed for their sisters. The only way to assure that the eggs you're eating haven't been produced as a result of this is if you eat eggs from chickens that you keep yourself.
9
Here is a video, to provide a little back up for my essay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os3t7lqTdKY&feature=player_embedded
1. Edits
2. Why think about meat eating
3. Why meat eating isn't natural and why it doesn't matter if it's natural anyway
4. The suffering of farmed animals
5. Morals and animal intelligence vs. emotion
6. Meat eating and the environment
7. A word on health
8. Extra notes on veganism
9. A video on the subject
1
Edit:
1. I suppose if I was writing this now, I'd be writing it in a less accusatory manner. However, every now and again, I read through it and even though I've found a way to be less angry at everyone, I still believe everything I've written. I realise that everyone has different routes to morality which manifest in different ways but how anyone can make a claim that their enjoyment of each individual portion of meat justifies the suffering and death of each individual consumed is still far beyond me and I have no desire to reach it.
2. It may be interesting for you to note that the recommended amount of meat which should be eaten in a week, by those who choose to eat meat, is about the size of cigarette packet. About two thirds of a burger. The consumption of meat is an issue in itself, but the overconsumption of meat is absolutely insane.
3. These writings aren't a game of Jenga. You can't deconstruct one of my points and expect the whole thing to crumble. You can argue that humans are omnivores 'til you're blue in the face and I'll still tell you that eating animals is unnecessary.
Please read in depth before messaging me.
I don't care if meat is tasty and I don't care if you like blood, guts and gore. Neither are good arguments and you'll genuinely look completely pathetic if you use them as such.
2
Right now, if you eat meat, you're part of a significant majority. Chances are, you haven't thought about your actions extensively and haven't felt the need to, because there's safety in numbers. It seems, at first glance, that meat eating MUST be fine, it MUST be natural and morally acceptable, otherwise so many people wouldn't do it. It's easy to assume that because so many people eat meat, someone must have thought it through enough to have found a justification for it, so why should you bother thinking it through yourself?
3
Whether or not meat eating is NATURAL is 100% irrelevant, because meat eating is UNNECESSARY. But let's discuss that since it seems to interest everyone so much.
Humans are primates. We, like other primates, have incisors and canines in our mouths, but these aren't a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to eating meat, no matter how often meat eaters throw it in the faces of vegans and vegetarians, as though it means something. Our teeth are not designed for killing and devouring animals with, they are designed as a defense mechanism. Our teeth are far smaller in comparison to those of omnivores and carnivores. We don't have teeth like sheep or cows, because we're not meant to be eating grass, we're meant to be eating fruit and veg. There is more than one kind of herbivore. Physically, none of us are capable of chasing and killing a cow or a pig with just our bodies in the wild, nor do we have the instinct to, so why do so in a factory? Generally, we don't walk through country lanes, see cows and want to rip them to shreds. And when it comes to our innards, our intestines are that of a herbivores - twice as long as any omnivores, and four times as long as any carnivores. We digest our food slowly, unlike omnivores and carnivores, and our food requires extensive chewing, whereas omnivores just break it up into smaller bits, and carnivores more often that not swallow their food whole. On top of that, we do not have the enzymes in our stomach to cope with digesting raw meat, without first cooking it. Meat is not essential for our survival in any way, it does not provide us with anything we can't get from other, non-sentient sources. There is ONE vitamin that is found in meat that isn't generally found in plants, and that is Vitamin B12. If we were still living naturally, we'd get our B12 by eating soil and our own faeces - so I'd like to stick to my marmite and fortified cereals without criticism, cheers.
Have a ponder at the following chart -
I, for one, have been a vegetarian since I was 7 and a vegan since I was 17 and I have remained in largely excellent health, with minimal difficulties, this whole time. I might have rushed to answer to the argument that meat consumption is a necessity for human health and survival, but I find that it is often the closest argument to hand for meat eaters arguing with me. It is a fact that humans do not need to eat meat and I find it a bit silly when people try to tell me otherwise. If I could raise an eyebrow, I'd raise an eyebrow and say, "I haven't had a mouthful of meat since I was making wings out of paper in primary school and I'm still here."
4
So you see that even when the argument is stripped down to it's bare roots, even then, meat eating is not natural for humans. So how is it justified to debeak chickens, stuff them in cages or huge sheds where they can't turn around, pump them full of steroids until they can't stand up, beat them to death with crowbars, throw them against walls, jump up and down on them, keep them in cages where they get wounds on their feet that eventually grow right around the bars on the cage floors? All this and then an ugly death where they are hung upside down and dipped, while still conscious, into tubs of boiling water. Unwanted baby chicks are thrown into wood chippers. Justify that. Newborn calves are torn away from their continuously impregnated mothers, and made deliberately anaemic, so that the resulting veal is the right colour to fetch the highest price on the market. All baby animals are castrated without anaesthetic and have various bits of their bodies cut off in the same manner - tails, horns, ears. The industry says that 1 cent per bullet costs too much, so that death is never quick - like chickens, they are hung upside down, they have their throats slit and they are left hanging there, until they have been "bled out" - I won't go into detail about the other animal produce industries here, but rest assured that the abuse doesn't stop at the meat industry.
If you eat meat, that sends a message to the industry that you want it. They kill to meet a quota, they don't kill at random. It's supply and demand. They kill because by consuming meat, you're asking them to.
If we have the technology to survive without inflicting pain and death, there is no reason not to do so. Technology benefits us in many ways, so why not allow it to benefit us and animals when it comes to food.
5
Animals killing animals does NOT making humans killing animals okay, because, yknow, I'm not a fucking lion and neither is anyone here. We have to draw the correct lines in the correct places. We are NOT similar to most other animals when it comes to diet, except for primates, so we can't claim that as our argument for eating meat. (And my pre-emptive argument against anyone who says that if we don't breed animals for meat, those animals will die out is; Yes. And all the animals we DON'T eat are all DEAD.)
However, we are similar to animals in other ways. We have to take animals into consideration when evaluating our morals because animals are capable of suffering to the same extent as humans, and like humans, animals also strive to avoid unnecessary suffering. Animals feel emotions in the same way humans do, and anyone who has ever had a companion animal would have a difficult time denying that. We have to put it into context. If a dog isn't as intelligent as a human, that's fine. Let's not award that dog a scholarship, let's not allow that dog to drive a car. But a dog can feel as much pain as a human, so that dogs rights to not have pain inflicted upon him or her have to be taken into consideration. The fact that a dog is not a human and cannot verbalise his or her pain in the way a human can, does not lessen the pain that he or she feels.
In the same way, for the cow, pig, or chicken, being apologetic about meat eating and having moments of weakness, where you just have to devour some flesh isn't good enough either. These are just tastebuds and an easily otherwise-satisfied appetite. For the creature consumed, there is no choice but birth, suffering and death.
We have to learn from the mistakes of the past. When Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her books about feminism, retaliations were written by men, claiming that if these principles could be applied to women, then they could also be applied to animals, and so her claims simply MUST be preposterous. Yes, there was once a time when women suffered at the hands of men, and black people suffered at the hands of white people in the same way animals suffer at the hands of people now. The word applicable here is OPPRESSION. The comparisons are staring us in the face, and if you care about equality, you can't brush aside the rights of animals. Gynaecological surgery was pioneered by a white man operating on the genitals of black women, without anaesthesia, because he said that black women felt less pain. We NEED to learn from the mistakes of the past and stop doing whatever is CONVENIENT, in favour of doing what is right.
6
Meat eating, each year, causes anywhere between 14% and 25% of carbon emissions - quick, turn the LIGHT OFF, that'll stop the ice caps melting.
Meat eating isn't just bad for the animals - it has horrendous effects on the environment as well. Here are some fun facts; Right now, in Britain 95% of farmland is used to grow grain for animal feed. If the USA alone reduced its meat intake by 10%, there would be enough grain left over to feed the whole of the third world. It take 16 pounds of grain to produce only 1 pound of animal flesh for consumption. It simply doesn't make any sense at all. Waste from the animals pollutes land and rivers, while methane from cows contributes to global warming. From an acre of land, you can get 60 kg of beef, or you could get 20,000 kg of potatoes. Eating meat is, simply put, inefficient. It's convenient for you, but causes irreparable damage to the environment. For example, the rainforest is now being cut down at the rate of one acre per minute to make way for cattle, so meat eaters can have their fucking big macs. 20 times more land is needed to feed a meat eater than is needed to feed a vegetarian. Half of all water used in the western world is used for animals, either to drink, or to irrigate crops of animal feed.
7
And then theres your health. Meat eaters are at a much higher risk of having high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, various cancers, heart disease, alzheimers, impotence, asthma and a bad immune system. As a vegan, it's basically a given that I won't have to worry about suffering a heart attack.
8
Extra notes, on veganism;
Cows don't produce milk at random, this is the thing. They have to be continuously impregnated in order to produce milk. When the calf is born, they are taken straight away from their mother, and raised for veal, forced to be anaemic so that the veal is the right colour. The separation also causes ALOT of distress for the mother cow, they've been noted to return again and again to the spot where the calf was taken from them. Even if the calves aren't raised for veal, they are still sold to be raised for beef and they still have to be separated from their mothers. It's not nice at any turn you take. The machines used to milk the lactating cows are also damaging to the cows, they get ulcers on their udders and there is usually a quantity of pus in every bucket of milk as a result.
As for chickens, well well. Laying chickens are kept five to a cage the size of a microwave. They are sometimes starved and kept without light for a few days at a time, and then fed up again, as this make egg production faster. They get wounds on their feet from the cage bars, and their feet sometimes heal up around the bars so that they can't move (not that they were able to to begin with). And of course, when laying chickens die, they have to be replaced. Male chicks can't lay eggs, so if there is a surplus of male chicks, those male chicks (there is no joke here, this is honesty) are ground up and made into chicken feed for their sisters. The only way to assure that the eggs you're eating haven't been produced as a result of this is if you eat eggs from chickens that you keep yourself.
9
Here is a video, to provide a little back up for my essay.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
