I’m done.

I’m saying goodbye not just to tumblr, but to social media in general. I’ve given it a lot of thought over the last couple of months, and I think it’s the best decision for me at this moment. Maybe one day I’ll feel rested and recharged and I’ll come back and post again. I don’t know.

But I’m also saying goodbye to the Social Justice Movement. This decision was a harder one, but it has been a long time coming. I have many reasons for deciding that, while I believe in ideas such as anti-oppression/anti-prejudice and intersectionality, I no longer feel that I fit in with SJers. I considered posting a detailed explanation, but to be honest I just don’t have the energy to do so. Suffice it to say, my continued involvement with these issues is something I need to do privately and by myself.

Thanks to all of you who have engaged with me, chatted with me, read my stuff, disagreed with me, been there for me. Thank you for extending your friendship to me. My time on tumblr was short, but it was all of you who made it worthwhile.

eateroftrees:

Not to mention that psuedonyms aren’t always readily distinguishable from “real” names. Amina Arraf and Paula Brooks (pseudonyms of two hetero men who created fake lesbian identities and deceived a bunch of people)

Okay see, this is transmisogyny as you have it written here.

I don’t particularly know the story of Paula Brooks, but the problem with Amina Arraf was not that the pseudonym was a lesbian, it was that the pseudonym was presenting itself as a blogger from Syria when in fact the blogger was a white western person, which is imperialism and racism, and a number of other problems relating to deception on a scale beyond just their gender identity.

From the perspective of a large number of people, including probably most news media, a “hetero man who created a fake lesbian identity” is EXACTLY WHAT I AM.

Considering as far as we know we have very little discussion of the person’s gender identity (beyond what we know they’re being assigned by the world) it is extremely problematic to assume they are cis, especially considering “pretending” to be a different gender is a really obvious characteristic of transness.

For the sake of brevity, I left out the racism/imperialism because it was not a shared trait with the Paula Brooks character. I apologize for that; you’re right that it was an incredibly important aspect of the deception and I should have included it. I should also have included that Bill Graber (who created the online persona of Paula Brooks) also appropriated deafness in order to get out of speaking as Paula on the phone (and instead used himself, posing as Paula’s father, as an “interpreter”).

My wording was cissexist and I apologize for that. However, I disagree with you that the adoption of a lesbian identity in Amina’s case (this extends to Paula Brooks as well) was not a problem. In both cases the people behind these pseudonyms eventually made it clear that they were cis hetero men creating “characters” in order to gain a large platform in the communities that they didn’t feel they would get if they posted as their hetero (and white, in the case of Amina/McMaster) male selves.

Here’s some information on Paula Brooks:

“Paula Brooks,” editor of Lez Get Real since its founding in 2008, is actually Bill Graber, 58, who said he is a retired Ohio military man and construction worker that had adopted his wife’s identity online. Graber said she was unaware he had been using her name on his site.

[…]

Graber said he started the site to write about gay issues after seeing the mistreatment of close friends who were a lesbian couple. He said the site was “done with the best of intentions.” As a former Air Force pilot, he also said he used the site to argue in favor of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal.

“I didn’t start this with my name because… I thought people wouldn’t take it seriously, me being a straight man,” he said.

McMaster refers to Amina as a “character” in this video interview, also in the interview:

McMaster: Well, if I sign myself with an Arab girl’s name, first there will be some deference from obnoxious men, just because people will be more polite to a girl, than to- to a guy. Second, people won’t get hung up on “why do you hate”.

Interviewer: And, does that explain why Amina has an online identity that goes back to that goes back to the five years on-on gay dating profiles?

McMaster: Yeah. Okay, well, I’m just trying to set up a personal- a full personality. And, um, you know, I also wanted to develop my sort of writing conversation skills. And, you know, just to be able to interact with people, you know, as best I could.

[…]

Interviewer: Why the lesbian identity and why so involved?

McMaster: Because it’s hard… for me. It’s a challenge. I like the challenge.

So, I don’t really agree with you that we have little discussion about these two people’s gender identity. There was a lot of discussion, no small amount done with the two people themselves. While it’s possible that what these men said in public is not what they feel in private, all I have to judge is their public actions and their public explanations. And nothing they have done has lead me to feel that they adopted the identities they did in order to explore their gender identity, but rather all the evidence that I have read points to their adoption of those particular identities being because they felt that their privilege hindered their ability to have a platform in marginalized spaces about marginalized issues.

Again, I apologize for my cissexist framing of the issue. I apologize for leaving out the other important ways that they adopted non-privileged identities. I apologize for throwing out the names without any links to clarify the situation and/or evidence to properly explain how those two people engaged in deceiving the public. I will try to do better in the future.

unmaskd:

From http://unmaskd.com/2011/07/25/open-letter-to-larry-page/

Dear Larry,

Congratulation on Google+! Contrary to many predictions, you’ve nailed it. Your team has certainly learned from successes and failures of others and it shows. Google+ Circles make targeted content sharing a…

Or: Why I don’t trust Google and neither should you

Just in case you don’t know yet, Google has recently opened to the public a social networking tool called Google+. In terms of the social networking aspect itself, what I’ve read has been overwhelmingly positive… except that Google (who, ironically, did not apparently do any Googling to see what previous reactions to the kinds of policies they are trying to implement were) decided that they were going to create a “civil” community by forcing people to use “real” names. What Google, and a lot of other companies/people, need to learn is that using one’s “real” (presumed legal, in practice anything that looks “normal”) name does not automatically mean they will be held accountable for their actions and therefore act accordingly.

The thing is, as popular as Penny Arcade’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is, it’s wrong. Anyone who knows the name Will Shetterly has firsthand knowledge about how people don’t need to be anonymous to believe that they are free from any consequences of their actions (see ABW’s Why The Argument That People Using “Real Names” Are Better Behaved Online Rings False for more information).

Not to mention that psuedonyms aren’t always readily distinguishable from “real” names. Amina Arraf and Paula Brooks (pseudonyms of two hetero men who created fake lesbian identities and deceived a bunch of people) could have had a Google+ account with any problems, but Skud gets hers suspended. Where’s the accountability?

Here’s the thing, while it’s easy to want to believe that “real” names are a magic wand that can fix your community’s problem, it’s simply not true. The only way to make sure your community is a civil, friendly, and safe place to be is to DO IT YOURSELF. Yes, that means devoting time, people, and money to moderate the space. I know, in our capitalist society most companies see that as a “waste” of resources, but is it really more profitable to shut out a sizable portion of your potential consumer base because of an unsupported belief that “real” names equal accountability? And, if so, do you really want to present your company as an entity that privileges profits over the safety of its (potential) customers?

In an online space the name I am most accountable to is tekanji. If I were to use Google+, this would be the name I would want to be known as. Maybe I would put my “real” name (or, at least, the one I go by online in English speaking environments; the truth is that I have multiple “real” names and this is not at all uncommon). Maybe I wouldn’t. But Google+, as the community standards are being enforced right now (which is not what is stated in the User Content and Conduct Policy, which states: “…use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you.” Yet another reason not to trust Google: they neither know how to write clear codes of conduct nor know how to enforce them properly.) I would not be able to go by my most common and accountable online name.

This does not make me feel that the service/company would hold me, or anyone else, accountable for our actions. Indeed, unless the policies are seriously revised and a push is done to uphold them properly, I foresee Google+ being YouTube with “real” names. Google could not have done anything to make Google+ feel MORE unsafe to me than to enforce a “real” name policy, especially when such a policy is NOT required by their User Content & Conduct Policy.

judicandusdies:

tekanji:

AND I CAN’T STOP LOOKING AT IT.

Now I want sushi. Especially salmon sushi. ;.;

I know! I can almost taste it, all day long. And I live not far from someplace where I could get sushi.

TAKE ME WITH YOUUUUUUUUUUUU

AND I CAN’T STOP LOOKING AT IT.

Now I want sushi. Especially salmon sushi. ;.;

judicandusdies:

I got two words for you: Will Shetterly.

That’s not how I spell his last name. He’s a prime example of why famous professional people should have someone to look at their social media and do a little bit of damage control or at least have a conversation with them about how their behavior is inappropriate.

He’s also one of the reasons why I state not as a hyperbole that I hate free speech. Because it isn’t free. Every time he opens his “mouth” someone who doesn’t have as much privilege as he does pays for his speech (as do we all for any privilege denying person). He barges into any space that will have him and swings his privilege around smashing the conversation freely and leaving an actual constructive dialogue that could lead to social change in shambles around his self absorbed bullshit.

Which, btw, is why I don’t comment on most womanist and POC spaces, I just sit and listen. Because even just stopping by to say something is me poking my privileges in where they aren’t wanted or needed.

Bolded for TRUTH.

Way back, when I was getting my name changed, I asked whether or not they would include any gender-neutral titles in their service, and they told me no. They said that they would only accept titles accepted by official record holders such as the Identity and Passport Service (IPS).

[…]

I just got a response, part of which is the following:

Since you first emailed us about this subject several months ago, we have been giving it quite a bit of thought and agree that a gender neutral title should be available to anyone who wishes to have one. We have a preference for Mx since Misc is already a well known and frequently used abbreviation for miscellaneous (the non-gender related meaning). Mx would be a unique abbreviation.

Since you have demonstrated some record holders can and will accommodate a new title, we now believe issuing deed polls with Mx as a new title will help force the issue with record holders who are reluctant to recognise the new title.

OH YES.

I got two words for you: Will Shetterly.