Time to Plant Tears

[incorrectsylviaplathquotes]

It’s October 3rd.

Sylvia Plath (via incorrectsylviaplathquotes)

[meliorn]

[timetoplanttears]

“The basis of most arguments against trans people is that we are not who we say we are, that we are always and only the gender that we were assigned at birth. And so much of that is about having a sense of certainty around gender, that when you were born with a certain set of genitalia, then that must dictate your entire life, and the reality is that that’s not true. A lot of people are not comfortable with that, because then that means they have to begin to question who they are.”- Laverne Cox

Powerful stuff.

[timetoplanttears]

Check your privilege.

The Irish Independent, a fairly popular Irish newspaper recently published an article by Emer O'Kelly on Maria Walsh (the winner of the Rose of Tralee, an Irish beauty pageant) explicitly declaring her sexuality to the media. The piece highlights the gross misunderstandings that many straight people have in regards to the oppression still faced by sexual and gender minorities in "tolerant" societies. I think it's important to address these misnomers, and I'll do so by looking at my "favourite" quotes from the article. 

'I [O'Kelly] cannot imagine, for instance, why I should grab people by the lapels...and declare that I am an irredeemable heterosexual, and have always known it.'

Ok, so Emer O'Kelly can't understand why coming out is a big deal. The problem is straight people never have to come out. The vast majority of people are assumed to be straight (which seems to be why we're having this discussion around Maria Walsh's sexuality in the first place?) and therefore never have to declare their sexuality. They are assumed to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, and when they have a relationship it's almost always accepted by their family and friends. Most logical people can probably see how that's different for sexual and gender minorities. They necessarily have to declare their sexuality for other people to not be misrepresented and to gain respect and recognition from those around them.

But moreover, '"coming out" is a big deal because we live in a patriarchal system of oppression. If you're LGBTQ*, unless you're lucky enough to live in these 17 countries, you are a second class citizen. That's what makes declaring your sexuality so much harder. It is the fact that by openly self-identifying as a sexual minority you are co-opted into a state sanctioned system of homophobia/transphobia, whereby you are abused, often verbally, physically and psychologically. Even in countries with legal equality, homophobia still exists, as acknowledged by O'Kelly. That's why coming out is a big deal for the LGBTQ* community, and to say otherwise is to belittle and demean the massive hurdles faced by sexual minorities in their every day lives. 

'the reasons that gay people of both genders are rather inclined to scream their heads off, (and a lot of them seem to begin almost every speech/conversation/ remark with, "speaking as a gay man/woman,") may be due to past legal discrimination and religious persecution against them.'

Let's be clear, by 'scream their heads off', Emer O'Kelly means 'talk actively, openly and regularly about the types of discrimination faced by the gay community'. This quote is a character assassination on gay rights activists and any gay person who chooses to talk about their own experiences. O'Kelly has attempted to paint the gay community as hysterical, militant and unreasonable. Firstly, can we not pretend that sexual minorities are given too much air time or are overexposed? In reality, it is almost always rich, straight, white men who dominate every conversation on social/economic issues. To say gay people scream their heads off is to pretend that the gay community has a platform from which it can speak. That is a fallacy.

Secondly, if Emer O'Kelly had ever been to a gay rights march or event, she would know that the general tone is calm, considered and persistent. That's not to say that sexual minorities don't have a lot to be angry about, but for the most part they are willing to take part in the charade that dominant media organisations have declared is 'civil debate'. In my opinion, it would be perfectly legitimate for the LGBTQ* community to block the streets on a daily basis with marches, to strike and to organise sit ins, in order to tear down an abhorrent and unjust social order. But at the few marches/TV debates that do happen, the reason many speakers and representatives begin their remarks with 'as a gay/lesbian/bi/trans/asexual/intersex person' is because that is a powerful way to frame their argumentation, to combat the vast amounts of straight, cisgender people who like to speak about these issues, people like Emer O'Kelly.

Finally on this quote, the idea that legal and religious discrimination/persecution is in the past is just untrue. Some current legal and social obstacles faced by sexual minorities in Ireland for example:

The inability to marry

No recognition of trans people's gender

A ban on gay men giving blood

A de facto, state supported ban on calling out homophobia 

The politicisation of sexual minorities (the recent Broadcasting Authority of Ireland decision)

Section 37(1) of the constitution which allows employers (such as schools) with a religious ethos discriminate while hiring

Maybe the Independent need a new fact-checker?

'But de-criminalisation of homosexual practice will never change illogical bigotry and prejudice. Nor will any amount of "gay pride" and individual gays mentioning it every hour on the hour. They should, perhaps, remember that the only people worth worrying about already accept them (and always did) as fully normal members of society and will support their civil and human rights without needing sledgehammer tactics.'

From here the article moves from being illogical and untrue, to misunderstanding the basis of the world and people. Firstly, it is untrue to say that no amount of discourse will change people's minds. In fact, the point humanity has reached in regards to the gay community was caused by discourse. That's the power of 'coming out'; it forces those around you to actually think about what it's like to be gay, it makes them so much more likely to support gay empowerment when the lack thereof is to the detriment of their friend of relative. Sexual minorities will continue to worry about homophobes because they're the ones who abuse them on public transport, who talk on television and who make the lives of LGBTQ* people so much more difficult. 

Furthermore, O'Kelly misses the point around gay pride and openly discussing one's sexuality. Shockingly, it actually has very little to do with straight people. Every instance of a gay pride parade or your friend talking about their experience as a sexual minority is not a bid for marriage equality. It is those individuals self-actualising. It is their process of coming to terms with their sexual identity, being proud of who they are and feeling strong enough to engage in open dialogue about themselves. O'Kelly degrades this process as something that's easy and natural. 

The only person a member of the LGBTQ* community should worry about when it comes to their sexuality is themselves. Straight people should be irrelevant. However, the reason gay people do worry about straight people is that its necessary to get them on board in order to see their rights vindicated. In Ireland, people will directly vote on gay marriage in a referendum next Spring, therefore the gay community will continue to talk about their struggle because that is the best way to agitate for change and encourage straight people to award them the rights they always deserved. The biggest fear in the Irish gay community right now is that there exists a silent majority of straight people who believe in marriage equality, but won't go out and vote on the issue. 

In short: Straight, cisgender people need to check their privilege. Their experience is likely a far-cry from that of the average LGBTQ* person. By saying that coming out doesn't matter any more, or that oppression doesn't exist is deeply problematic. It reduces the legitimate grievances of the gay community to petty, unimportant concerns. These issues do matter. Straight people writing them out of existence in columns is a disservice to journalism and the gay community.

[timetoplanttears]

Irish language public schools - unnecessary AND discriminatory

Ireland's public school system is mediocre at best. Instead of there being a clear standard that all state schools achieve, so much depends on catchment areas. Basically, if you live in a middle class area where there's a public school, the chances of you getting into university are far higher than those who attend public schools in disadvantaged areas.

While inequality in public education due to socio-economic background is regrettable, it's not a problem caused entirely by the Irish public education system. It is the result of that public education system existing in a society where economic inequality is entrenched. Instead, one of the worst problems as a result of the Irish public education system is the existence of public schools which are also 'Gaelscoils' - schools which teach solely through the medium of Irish.

The vast majority of Gaelscoils are public schools, funded almost exclusively by the state. Thus, besides the fact that there are no secular schools in Ireland, the Irish government is further entrenching social division in by supporting this exclusive form of education. They discourage poor families, foreign nationals, families with children with learning disabilities and families from the Travelling Community from attending them. 

For the four social groups mentioned above, enrolling in a Gaelscoil is not a realistic opportunity. Foreign nationals who speak no Irish will be discouraged from sending their child, for whom English is probably a second language, to a school where they will be taught solely in Irish. The parents of children with learning disabilities are unlikely to see any real benefit in attempting to get their child to learn through a second language, considering that many children with learning disabilities already face significant obstacles to receiving a satisfactory education. Traveller children already face massive discrimination in enrolling in schools already, and face further disincentives from enrolling in a school which teaches through a language very few Travellers speak. Finally, the simple but unfortunate realities of poverty mean that children from lower socio-economic backgrounds are far less to go to Irish language schools. Their parents are statistically less likely to have a high standard of Irish, and ultimately have less time and resources to invest in learning Irish so that they can aid their child with their education.

The end result of this is that Irish language public schools disproportionately favour enrolment from white, middle-class, settled Irish parents. Irish language public schools are therefore exclusive. Despite being funded by taxpayer money, they are only accessible to some people in society. What that means is worse education for minority groups, because in areas where one public school is a Gaelscoil and another isn't, the students in the latter school will always be worse off as the Gaelscoil will be attended by middle-class Irish kids, while the English language school will be attended by minority groups. Recognise that the students of poorer parents, Travellers and foreign nationals often require increased attention in schools. Many children with learning disabilities will require a special needs assistant, and possibly a resource teacher to help with English and Maths. The vast majority of these students will end up in the non-Irish language public school. Their education will suffer as a result, while the predominantly middle-class children who attend the Gaelscoil will get another leg up in life; they will receive a superior education because their teachers won't have to help many students for whom school can be difficult. 

Through Irish language public schools, the Irish government fuels discrimination, inequality and social polarisation. The status quo is intolerable, and should be actively fought against. However, in reality, too many Irish politicians are too happy to kow-tow to the Irish language lobby. The inequality will continue because for Irish politicians, votes and campaign contributions are more important than ensuring a child with autism gets a good education.

[timetoplanttears]

Hamas and human shields

Thankfully, on Tuesday, Israel and Hamas agreed to an indefinite ceasefire. While the agreement does little to alter the asymmetry of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it will save countless lives in the short term.

Throughout the 50 day conflict, the large amounts of collateral damage seen in Gaza was justified for many commentators and politicians (even "liberals" like Elizabeth Warren) by Hamas' use of human shields. For these people the collateral damage was not coincidental, but the result of a pre-meditated tactic by Hamas, and thus a distinction could be drawn. For example, the Israeli military says it levelled a 12 story apartment block because Hamas had chosen to use on of those apartments as an operations room. The idea that it is acceptable to knowingly target civilian areas because an enemy force knowingly uses those civilians to deter such an action is a fallacy.

According to the Rome Statute, the amount of civilian casualties caused by a military operation must be proportional to the gains achieved by that attack. In war, most people hope their military makes these calculations, and when they don't, they're held to account. The guiding principal here is that civilians are uninvolved in the conflict. They take no active role in pursuing the objectives of either side, and therefore military operations which would knowingly endanger an unacceptably high number of these civilians cannot be legitimised. Under documents like the Rome Statute, the fact that an al-Qaeda operative or a Tuareg fighter happens to be in proximity to you and your family does not sanction you being killed in order to neutralise that combatant. 

So, what changes when human shields are used? Very little, it seems. Civilians are still not fighting for either side. The fact that one side has purposefully inserted themselves in the midst of non-combatants changes nothing. It is still a game of chance. It is those civilians' bad luck that Hamas has decided to use them as their (ineffective) protection, much as it is the bad luck of a Pakistani family that Taliban fighters happen to be driving the car ahead of them before they are hit by a drone strike. Civilians can't choose whether or not they are near targeted belligerents in either of these scenarios. The destruction of 48 apartments because 1 of them is a Hamas operations room is just as illegitimate as the murder of 147 civilians in Granai in an attempt to kill less than half that number of insurgents. Because either killing large number of civilians for spurious military gains is illegitimate, or it isn't. The intent of the combatants you are targeting is entirely secondary, even irrelevant.

The response to this argument that is so often heard is "Israel has a right to defend itself from terrorists", and that right extends to overcoming the terrorists' use of human shields. That specific argument is premised on a core tenant of much of the world's policy making: unadulterated racism. That argument says that Israeli lives are inherently worth more than Palestinian lives, and that in order to protect a handful more of its citizens, Israel can kill innumerable Palestinians.

Ultimately, the dialogue surrounding human shields is bullshit. It is a cover for the fact that many inside the Israeli military and government do not care how many Palestinians they kill. It wouldn't matter if a Hamas operative was among civilians by chance or through intent. They would still jump at the chance to take him out. They would still be unperturbed by how many civilians they kill. And they would still live in a world where most Western policy makers are happy to let such things happen.