Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Considering activist requests carefully


I posted this to the FUSN list on March 14th of this year.

-------------

It is on the whole a good thing that the liberal sections of our society are paying more attention than ever before to historically oppressed groups. Yet my sense is that in a hurry to redress past wrongs we listen to what some activists request and sometimes do what they ask without thinking it through adequately.

I believe that when members of some group tell their story with “I” statements, we should listen with total acceptance to their experience of the world. If they go on to describe things such as what situations are objectively speaking oppressive, we should listen very carefully to an issue they have likely thought about more than we have. However, there is always room for debate. The majority might accept all of their recommendations, but they have a right and in fact an obligation to consider all sides of each issue. Hostile parties could of course use this debate process as a way to halt any progress, but that has to be dealt with directly, not by eliminating debate.

My issue of the day has to do with gender-neutral bathrooms. Here are my starting assumptions:

There should be no legal liability for anyone’s use of a bathroom regardless of sex or gender. We have laws against harassment and assault that do not need to refer to sex or gender or bathrooms.

Some bathrooms are occupied by only one person at a time, and making these gender-neutral increases flexibility for everyone. Also, when there are (say) six multi-person restrooms in a large building, three each for men and women, it would be reasonable to make two of them gender-neutral. But a lot of the time history has left us with just two multi-person restrooms. What then?

We humans are dramatically bimodal as a species regarding gender and biological sex. We have a custom of segregating bathrooms by sex/gender, and 99% of us know which room feels like “ours”. So custom suggests that cis-gendered people should use “your” room – unless you have a reason not to. There are many reasons not to. One common one is when there is a long line in the women’s room at a concert and men’s room stalls are unused. Another pertains to parents with opposite-gender small children, who should use whatever room best suits their needs. The gay boy “Ricky” from “My So-Called Life” had an excellent reason for using the girls’ room – to avoid harassment from boys in the boys’ room. Perhaps someone you dislike just preceded you into “your” room.
Some people might choose the other room now and then to just to reinforce that it is a valid choice.

Transgendered or non-binary individuals should use whichever room they wish, for whatever reason they wish. All people should be prepared to see users of “their” bathroom who are not typical, and to accept that they have a reason for it and no cause to inquire as to that reason.

My vision for labeling these rooms is a large woman figure (you know, the one with the dress) on one room with a much smaller male figure and trans (half-dress, half pants) figure, and of course the large male figure on the other room with the other two much smaller. This signals that no one is unwelcome in either room. But the vast majority of the time, almost all of the occupants of each room will be cis people corresponding to the gender of the large figure.

A more radical position is that gendered bathrooms should cease to exist. It seems even many trans activists don’t favor such a step at this time, but the proposal has been made.

The complaint is that a non-binary person is forced to choose a gendered bathroom. Even if they would be safe and accepted in either room, the choice is still not consistent with their non-binary identity. This can cause them psychological distress.

I would counter that many cis people could be uncomfortable and suffer psychological distress going into a multi-person restroom without an expectation that the occupants will with high likelihood be their gender. Trans people with a single gender identity might well feel the same.
I also think the custom of primarily single-gendered bathrooms is one that society can elect to keep for its own sake (if most people want it) – provided that trans people and others can be accommodated safely.

Others might have counterarguments to make. To me, the key point is that this whole discussion can be had without anxiety and fear of being labeled a bigot. People of good will can tell the non-binary person that as the situation stands, we cannot think of a way of accommodating their discomfort that is not worse for more people. Until someone has a better idea, it is the right decision. It’s unfortunate, but there is no need for guilt or anxiety.

We should be able to debate any request from activists of a historically oppressed group with the same calm frame of mind, considering costs and benefits.

(FUUSN recently updated its bathroom designations after much debate, and I am fine with a decision made after a lengthy process in complicated circumstances. I figure the considerations I raise above don’t even fully apply, as FUUSN’s multi-person bathrooms never comfortably accommodate more than two or three people at a time, if I recall correctly.)

Climate change is a done deal -- just how done? And what to do?


I posted this to the FUSN list on March 3rd of this year.

-------------------

I have been worried about climate change for quite some time. But it seemed that thirty years ago we were told that if we took decisive action now we could put off the worst of it, but the years pass and the message doesn’t change. I know that carbon emissions have not dropped very much if at all. What’s actually going on?

I found an essay by Jonathan Franzen that addressed this issue (from “The end of the end of the earth”, 2018, pp14-22). He argues that the insistence by the center and left that we can still stop it is understandable – but now a lie. I couldn’t immediately find anywhere where this discussion was happening online.

Franzen: “Three years ago, I was in a state of rage about climate change. The Republican Party was continuing to lie about the absence of a scientific consensus on climate... but I wasn’t much less angry at the left. I’d read a new book by Naomi Klein, “This Changes Everything”, in which she assured the reader that, although “time is tight,” we still have ten years to radically remake the global economy and prevent global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Klein’s optimism was touching, but it, too, was a kind of denialism. Even before the election of Donald Trump, there was no evidence to suggest that humanity is capable – politically, psychologically, ethically, economically – of slashing carbon emissions quickly and deeply enough to change everything. Even the European Union, which had taken the early lead on climate, and was fond of lecturing other regions on their irresponsibility, needed only a recession in 2009 to shift its focus to economic growth. Barring a worldwide revolt against free-market capitalism in the next ten years – the scenario that Klein contended could still save us – the most LIKELY rise in temperature this century is on the order of six degrees. We’ll be lucky to avoid a two-degree rise before the year 2030.

“In a polity ever more starkly divided, the truth about global warming was even less convenient to the left than to the right. The right’s denials were odious lies, but at least they were consistent with a certain cold-eyed political realism. The left, having excoriated the right for its intellectual dishonesty and turned climate denialism into a political rallying cry, was now in an impossible position. It had to keep insisting on the truth of climate science while persisting in the fiction that collective world action could stave off the worst of it: that universal acceptance of the facts, which really might have changed everything in 1995, could still change everything. Otherwise, what difference did it make if the Republicans quibbled with the science?

“Because my sympathies were with the left – reducing carbon emissions is vastly better than doing nothing; every half degree helps – I also held it to a higher standard. Denying the dark reality, pretending that the Paris Accord could avert catastrophe, was understandable as a tactic to keep people motivated to reduce emissions; to keep hope alive. As a strategy, though, it did more harm than good. It ceded the ethical high ground, insulted the intelligence of unpersuaded voters (“Really? We still have ten years?”), and precluded frank discussion of how the global community should prepare for drastic changes...

[Franzen wrote an essay, his editor] “nudged me toward framing the essay not as a denunciation but as a question: How do we find meaning in our actions when the world seems to be coming to an end? Much of the final draft was devoted to a pair of well-conceived regional conservation projects, in Peru and Costa Rica...” [The essay was heavily criticized by the left.]

Critics “made it sound as if I’d proposed that we abandon the effort to reduce carbon emissions, which was the position of the Republican Party, which, by the polarizing logic of online discourse, made me a climate-change denier. In fact, I’m such a climate-science accepter that I don’t even bother having hope for the ice caps. All I’d denied was that a right-minded international elite, meeting in nice hotels around the world, could stop them from melting. This was my crime against orthodoxy. Climate now has such a lock on the liberal imagination that any attempt to change the conversation ... amounts to an offense against religion.”

“... drastic global warming is already a done deal, and ... it seems unlikely that humanity is going to leave any carbon in the ground, given that, even now, not one country in the world has pledged to do it.”

“global warming is THE issue of our time, perhaps the biggest issue in all of human history. Every one of us is now in the position of the indigenous Americans when the Europeans arrived with guns and smallpox: our world is poised to change vastly, unpredictably, and mostly for the worse. I don’t have any hope that we can stop the change from coming. My only hope is that we can accept the reality in time to prepare for it humanely, and my only faith is that facing it honestly, however painful this may be, is better than denying it.”

The analogy of being Native Americans just as the Europeans arrive moves me a great deal. It is a very unpleasant topic, and I cringe a bit raising it in this community – but seeking truth is part of what we are committed to. I welcome other thoughts and perspectives.

Monday, May 27, 2019

A critique of "privilege"


I posted this to the FUSN list on August 31, 2018

-----------------

Some at FUSN have expressed appreciation for some of my past posts as thought-provoking.

Looking at the latest UU World confirmed once again a sense I have had for some time – that Unitarian-Universalism is distorting its path by lifting one kind of issue above all others.

In brief, identifying oppressor/oppressed pairs and redressing the oppression has come to occupy a place that is so central that it seems to drive to the margins all the other ways that we might improve the world, and indeed all the things we might do to live a full life in our brief time in this world.

Oppression is very real and worth combatting. Activists (like fundraising letters) have always tried to convince us that theirs is the vital issue, the crucial time is right now and the stakes couldn’t be higher. But they have taken their turn at the podium and the rest of us have made our own judgments. We’ve made quite a bit of progress. There is plenty more to make.

“Privilege” (and its generalized form “intersectionality”) are concepts that have come to occupy a prominent place among social liberals. The framework of privilege goes one very worrisome step further. It tampers with the process of rational debate, in part by denigrating contributions from people who are not members of oppressed groups. It claims that such people are only perpetuating an oppressive status quo without the sort of careful evidence needed to support that conclusion. In some forms, it can approve of interrupting orderly debates – interrupting speech if it is deemed to contain oppressive elements. One instance is “no-platforming” of speakers on university campuses when activists decide the message too oppressive to be worthy of a hearing.

I do not know if this critique applies to how the issue has played out in UU congregations and within the denomination more broadly. I hope UUism has been an exception. The privilege framework violates UU principles, notably the First (inherent worth and dignity), Third (acceptance and spiritual grown) and Fourth (free and responsible search for truth and meaning), and in its full-blown form is not consistent with any of them.

The framework of privilege reduces individuals to their membership in a variety of categories where one is oppressor and the other oppressed. There is no end to such categories, and activists feel justified in calling out privilege on behalf of others. Its adherents devote quite a bit of their mental space and energy to thinking of how everything they say or do could be oppressive to some group. I fear people rarely stop and consider what other aspects of their lives and values have been crowded out to make this space. I thought this book review on the subject was thought-provoking: https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/honor-dignity-victim-cultures/
The seductive appeal of the privilege framework relies in part on losing track of history. We could remember that all but the very poorest in the US today live lives of material abundance never matched in any culture more than a couple generations back. Most oppressed groups have it better than they ever have in the past. If you see society on a path of moving always forward to greater equality and prosperity, a laser focus on driving for more improvements makes sense. But if you see history as an inevitable ebb and flow, a mix of good times followed by bad, then more focus might go to trying to preserve the gains. There are many white people of modest means and good will in the US who do not feel privileged and exert great influence at the ballot box. One of our tasks should be listening carefully to their concerns.

Here are a few resources that deal with these issues that I thought were very good:


Of course it’s not for me to tell people what’s important. Each of us decides that on our own, but I would like people who accept the privilege framework to do so with open eyes.

Here we go again, after 10 years


It's very close to 10 years since I made my last substantive post. My mind has been elsewhere. Now I am moved to post again.

Since 2009 my two daughters have both grown to independence as flourishing young women. At the end of 2012 I retired from my career as a software engineer, and fill my time with a lot of online activities, along with games, books, movies, and friends. I also ended a long-term relationship at the end of 2012 and do not expect to be romantically involved with anyone again.

As for FUSN, I was a Coming of Age mentor in 2009-2010. I've been in four separate Chalice Circles since then (each runs a year) but tired of them. In 2017 I argued passionately against FUSN changing its name to FUUSN (the one U for "Unitarian" becoming two Us for "Unitarian-Universalist"). The name change needed a two-thirds vote to pass and met that standard with a single vote to spare.

I feel alienated from FUUSN in part because of the rising emphasis, both within the congregation and the larger UU denomination, on identity politics, known in its general form as "intersectionality". Future posts will expand on this. On a more personal level, I was a spiritual seeker of sorts when I joined FUSN in 1993, and wanted a religious community for my family to belong to. I never really was anything but an atheist, but I did find the Protestant form of religious service comforting and satisfying. Starting in 2010 if not before, that was true less and less. Now I find it unsatisfying and even irritating instead. But FUUSN is still full of people who I shared the bonds of community with for many years, and I still value those bonds.

I reviewed all my old posts. I didn't find any where I said, "Wow, I would never write that now!" I guess it's not that surprising that my views haven't changed very much.. I did find five that I thought were especially worth rereading.

Human nature:

Mortality issues:

Religion: