{"id":1247,"date":"2013-04-07T17:50:05","date_gmt":"2013-04-08T00:50:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/?p=1247"},"modified":"2013-04-08T22:27:40","modified_gmt":"2013-04-09T05:27:40","slug":"sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/2013\/04\/07\/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue\/","title":{"rendered":"Sunday Sinner Guest Post: Iamcuriousblue"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Bio: By way of background, I am a mycologist, taxonomy geek, naturalist, and\u00a0microscope tech from the San Francisco Bay Area. After earning an\u00a0undergraduate degree in botany from University of Washington, and doing\u00a0graduate work in fungal taxonomy at San Francisco State, I switched gears,\u00a0professionally moved toward microscopy and biotech rather than tenure-track\u00a0academic research while at the same time, sharing my knowledge as a\u00a0community science educator and workshop leader in the Bay Area. I am\u00a0currently president of the SF Microscopical Society, one of the oldest\u00a0extant amateur scientific societies in the US. My CV, if anybody is\u00a0interested, can be found\u00a0http:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/pgwerner<\/a>\u00a0here.\u00a0Under the nom de guerre “Iamcuriousblue”, I write about various topics\u00a0related to science and its place in society, rationalism and skepticism,sexuality, sex work and the sex industry, and free speech, and attempt to\u00a0bring a rational and evidence-based approach to controversies around\u00a0sexuality, gender, and freedom of expression issues, of which there are\u00a0many these days.<\/p>\n

FREE SPEECH AND FEMINISM<\/strong><\/p>\n

Donglegate<\/strong><\/p>\n

My first reaction upon reading the bulk of articles about Adria Richards and the \u201cDonglegate\u201d\/PyCon incident was to seriously wonder if people had lost their minds en mass. The debate in the mainstream media and “feminist blogosphere” seems to be between those who believe Richards to be some sort of victim of sexual harassment that needed to punish those who offended her in the strongest possible way, versus those who take a more measured response and feel that she should have told the guys in question off face to face. But there were very few voices even considering the possibility that perhaps this was a private conversation and that third parties had no place jumping in at all, much less constituting an incident of “harassment”. So much for respect for basic rights like privacy and free speech having any part in discourse these days.<\/p>\n

Now it\u2019s no help that\u00a0Richards’ account of the incident itself<\/a>\u00a0is damned vague \u2013 it\u2019s not clear at all whether she simply overheard something that offended her, or whether the guys in question were talking loudly and being disruptive, or even heckling. The type of response merited was, of course, very different depending on the kind of behavior at hand. However, there seems to be a common sentiment that any comments that are \u201csexual\u201d in nature and said within earshot of someone who\u2019s offended, especially a woman, is something that should invite censure and quite possibly punishment. And that to speak negatively of Richard\u2019s actions at all constitutes a form of \u201charassment\u201d in and of itself.<\/p>\n

In fact, this whole incident has been used by\u00a0the usual suspects<\/a>\u00a0as a reason to once again attack those who defend free speech and sexual expression as fools and haters blinded by entitlement and privilege. Even worse, litigators are now trying to jump into the act and\u00a0making some very creepy statements<\/a>\u00a0that stand somewhere between Orwellian and McCarthyist:<\/p>\n

“My advice will be: Don’t engage in this kind of behavior because the person sitting next to you or behind you or in front of you has the ability to record on video and audio what you say. If that person is offended, your behavior may not be suitable for your continued employment.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The lack of proportionality at work here, the view that any man who crosses a woman for any reason in a professional context should be punished, and the calls for outright censorship are all quite simply astounding. But then, we are talking about the Gender Wars here, and reason and nuance walked off the field a long time ago.<\/p>\n

I suppose at this point, the \u201cAdria Richards got rape and death threats!\u201d line of argument inevitably rears its head. First, this has no bearing on whether Richards as the receiver of such attacks is actually right about her original complaint or not. Endorsement of Richards\u2019 position based on little more than this is simply an \u201cappeal to martyrdom<\/a>\u201d fallacy, and I\u2019m amazed at how many self-proclaimed \u201crationalists\u201d are advancing such an argument. Second, at the risk of being dismissive, I\u2019ll point out that in practically every single case since the high-profile controversies around Rebecca Watson and Anita Sarkeesian, practically every warrior woman who gets into a conflict on the internet drops the \u201cI\u2019m getting rape and death threats” line, almost inevitably without pointing to actual evidence that it\u2019s taking place (how hard is it publish threatening emails, tweets, etc?). Quite often in a blatant attempt to shift the topic of discussion to the reaction rather than the original issue itself. Such reactions to Richards or anybody else are, of course, totally reprehensible, a use of censorship to ostensibly fight censorship, and completely indefensible, but I see little evidence that, insofar as there’s any reality to the report of such threats, that it likely comes from the usual band of 4chan idiots and the like who have nothing to do with any serious critics of Richards or other feminists.<\/p>\n

To their credit, there have been a few critical and\/or nuanced takes on the PyCon affair from feminist bloggers, including\u00a0this one<\/a>\u00a0by Amanda Blum, and\u00a0this podcast<\/a>\u00a0by Timaree Leigh. Unfortunately, this has not been typical of mainstream media and feminist blog coverage of “Donglegate”, which ran with the “Richards as Joan of Arc” angle.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s Really at Stake<\/strong><\/p>\n

We need to look closely at the nature of the kinds of rules that feminist bloggers are coming out of the woodwork to support in the light of this latest controversy. Basically, these involve a subset of anti-harassment policies that involve prohibition of \u201csexualized\u201d language and imagery in \u201cprofessional\u201d settings. The boilerplate for such rules coming from passages in the\u00a0Geek Feminist model policy<\/a>\u00a0that is promoted heavily by the feminist blogosphere and the group\u00a0Ada Initiative<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cSexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks.\u201d \u201c\u2026.exhibitors should not use sexualized images, activities, or other material. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing\/uniforms\/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, they claim the rules can be tailored for more sex-positive events, all the while making dire warnings about making any exceptions at all:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do not recommended including this addendum unless you have specific real-world examples of content that absolutely require discussion of these topics.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Now ostensibly, the purpose of such rules is to prevent a frat-house atmosphere at professional meetings that is exclusionary toward women. Those of us who are critical of such rules are portrayed as merely defending the right of men to make juvenile insults toward women, whether through \u201cbig dongle\u201d jokes or hitting on women in elevators.<\/p>\n

However, another recent incident that has not gotten nearly so much publicity speaks to what\u2019s really at stake here. In February, Violet Blue, a well-know Bay Area sex-positive feminist and tech writer, put together\u00a0a presentation on harm reduction in the hacker community<\/a>, including the role of sex, drugs, and risky behavior in the hacker lifestyle. An important topic, to be sure, and one that is topical at some tech conferences, but when it was to be presented at the BSides Conference,\u00a0Valerie Aurora of the Ada Initiative went into full panic mode<\/a>.\u00a0Full story here<\/a>\u00a0(and additional interesting dirt in this\u00a0podcast interview<\/a>\u00a0with Violet Blue), but the upshot was that the presentation was canceled. Ada Initiative has issued a number of\u00a0rationalizations<\/a>\u00a0about their role and their actions, but ultimately issued\u00a0this missive<\/a>\u00a0as to why sexual presentations, no matter how feminist and sex-positive, should not be allowed anywhere near any conference that is tech-related. Apparently based on the lame old excuse that any mention of sex might be \u201ctriggering\u201d or \u201coffensive\u201d for some, and apparently the most offended minority gets to determine what everyone else can and can\u2019t see and hear.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure I even should need to explain all that\u2019s wrong with this approach, but considering the number of \u201csocial justice\u201d and mainstream media types promoting these ridiculous policies, I guess I have to. For starters, it harkens back to the\u00a0very worst<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0second wave antiporn feminism<\/a>, which holds women can only stand in relation to sex and sexuality in the role of victims, and to even older conservative\u00a0notions of women as the moral minders<\/a>\u00a0for both sexes. Not to mention what discourse such rules a priori shut down in regard to the subject itself \u2013 sex overlaps with technology (and technologists) in a myriad of ways, after all, and to demand a blanket set of rules that proscribe mention of sex across the entire range of technology conferences and forums, and to censor for all to protect the sensibilities of the few, all of this is stifling to far more than a few idiots and bad actors and has tremendous splash damage. Reasonable rules to keep more explicit or challenging discussions in spaces where people who don\u2019t want to be exposed to such can avoid them are one thing. The\u00a0comstockery<\/a>\u00a0practiced by “geek feminism”, Aurora, and the Ada Initiative is quite another. As Violet Blue has pointed out, such censorship is not only not a form of harm reduction, but constitutes a form of harm in itself.<\/p>\n

I should also mention that last year,\u00a0I pointed out<\/a>\u00a0in comments on \u201csex-positive\u201d feminist Greta Christina\u2019s blog just what was wrong with the inclusion of this kind of language in anti-harassment policies. For this, I was hounded mercilessly by the usual Freethoughtblogs gang of flying monkeys, called a “troll”, and booted from the forum by Christina herself. Unfortunately for everyone, however, my predictions have turned out to be right on the money.<\/p>\n

Censorship American Style<\/strong><\/p>\n

The issue of free speech inevitably comes up in debates such as this. It\u2019s a complicated issue, however, because this campaign is, by and large, not the action of government entities (except in relation to a broad interpretation of “hostile environment” sexual harassment laws), hence, not classic a priori state censorship. And yet, people face very real silencing and punishment due to the actions of various private groups and individuals that campaign to shut down \u201csexualized\u201d or \u201csexist\u201d speech and expression.<\/p>\n

An often-expressed sentiment by those supporting campaigns against “offensive” speech and expression is that they\u2019re not the government; therefore, what they\u2019re doing cannot possibly be censorship. And further, that an important part of free speech is the ability to operate one\u2019s own forum or venue where one has editorial control of the content. (The corollary canard is that those of us who protest for \u201cfreeze peach<\/a>\u201d, as they disparage it, really just want unlimited access to other people\u2019s forums, and that there\u2019s nothing more to the issue than that.) The first claim is posited on a very limited view of what constitutes censorship \u2013\u00a0non-State entities<\/a>\u00a0can and do practice censorship all the time. It is patently obvious that if, in a hypothetical example, someone wanted PZ Myers silenced and acted on it by going out and shooting him dead, they\u2019d be committing an act of censorship as well as murder. Of course, one does not need to go nearly so far to censor \u2013\u00a0poster<\/a>\u00a0destruction<\/a>,\u00a0denial of service attacks<\/a>,\u00a0heckler\u2019s veto<\/a>, or\u00a0intimidation tactics against speakers and audience members<\/a>\u00a0can accomplish this as well. This is a reason why free speech protection means that the government must protect those lawfully exercising their free speech rights from those who attempt to unlawfully deprive them of them, something a few \u201csocial justice\u201d protesters\u00a0don\u2019t seem to understand<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The second argument, the fact that you don\u2019t owe anyone a platform, is a position I happen to fully support. In fact, I made\u00a0a video<\/a>\u00a0to that effect a few years back. The problem comes when you launch campaigns to tell other people what to do on their forums, and marshal this crusade across as many forums and venues as you can find to make sure those expressions you don\u2019t like can\u2019t find a platform anywhere at all. Albeit, there are tricky grey areas here too, because certainly consumer boycotts can play a legitimate role in influencing opinion. The\u00a0recent Michelle Shocked incident<\/a>\u00a0comes to mind \u2013 her homophobic statements caused an immediate and near-total loss of her core audience, and venues for her to perform dried up accordingly. (Albeit, the story I linked to does mention a wholly redundant Change.org petition, whose organizers apparently miss the point that sometimes it’s best to declare victory and move on.) But there are some key differences when venues are threatened with retaliatory action if they don\u2019t drop a particular speaker, or\u00a0behind-the-scenes campaigns<\/a>\u00a0by one or a few people resulting in the loss of venues for those voices who many others might want to hear.<\/p>\n

Add to this mix the phenomenon of \u201chostile environment\u201d law, the overbreadth of which can clearly rise to the level of state censorship. Further add the over-application of this concept by various interest groups, the inherent gun-shy nature of employers when it comes to potential for lawsuits, and the\u00a0slippery slope<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0ever-expanding definitions<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0what constitutes a \u201cworkplace\u201d<\/a>, and you end up with a kind of censorship on your hands that\u2019s every bit as real as state censorship (the kind routinely\u00a0called for in countries<\/a>\u00a0where authoritarian and strong-state sympathies are more mainstream), only in this case, censorship enforced by employers rather than the police powers of the state, and often driven by behind-the-scenes pressure groups like Ada Initiative. In a sense, this is a very American approach to censorship \u2013 after all, in the US we privatize things like\u00a0war<\/a>,\u00a0prisons<\/a>, not to mention access to necessities like healthcare, which is doled out through a system of employee serfdom. So how very in keeping that our society privatizes censorship, and has corporations and nonprofits do the dirty work that the state cannot due to that pesky First Amendment. But what\u2019s really surprising is that self-described liberals and leftists are some of the biggest supporters of this approach. And that\u2019s truly a shame.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Bio: By way of background, I am a mycologist, taxonomy geek, naturalist, and\u00a0microscope tech from the San Francisco Bay Area. After earning an\u00a0undergraduate degree in botany from University of Washington, and doing\u00a0graduate work in fungal taxonomy at San Francisco State, I switched gears,\u00a0professionally moved toward microscopy and biotech rather than tenure-track\u00a0academic research while at the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7,8,9,274,16,20],"tags":[382,383,377,378,277,380,379,381,384],"class_list":["post-1247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atheism","category-drama","category-feminism","category-freethought-blogs","category-guest-posts-2","category-politics","category-skepticism","tag-dongles","tag-forking","tag-free-speech","tag-freeze-peach","tag-harassment","tag-harassment-policies","tag-iamcuriousblue","tag-jokes","tag-tech-speak"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1247"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1247\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/skepticallyleft\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}