Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

One of the tactics used by Chevalier in this conflict, and which Coraline Ehmke has also used in some of her online discussions, is to redefine "biological essentialism" to cover all discussion of physical sex characteristics and thus all discussion of intersex variations.

Real biological essentialism is stating things like "men are XY and women are XX" and that example is interphobic because there are intersex variations that fall outside that.

10/24

14 comments
Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

Chevalier and Ehmke redefine it to cover discussion of any biological trait. In doing so they enable classifying intersex people discussing intersex variations as the same thing.

So any discussion of the genetic causes of an intersex variation (bear in mind that many of them are named for the nature of that genetic variation), is now reclassified as biological essentialism and thus transphobic.

11/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

Thus they are both able to twist the actual meaning of biological essentialism to use it as a means to explicitly silence intersex people, whom they see as a threat to trans rights.

Mainly as a result of an unfounded fear of the consequences of intersex people obtaining human rights and banning non-consensual medical interventions.

12/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

To use myself as an example, this is a non-exhaustive list of how I am in automatic breach of the GF wiki policies, the CC and all policies derived from them:

1) I am intersex and neither trans nor cis.
2) I oppose IGM and other non-consensual medical interventions.
3) My intersex variation is not a disability.

13/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

4) My intersex variation is a naturally occurring (cause = pure random chance, BTW, and that's true random, not pseudo-random like in computing) physical, genetic variation.
5) I believe it is possible for everyone to be able to be free of non-consensual medical intervention, while being able to access whatever healthcare they do wish to consent to.

14/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

6) I do NOT believe that intersex people are inherently transphobic just for existing.
7) As a public signatory to the Darlington Statement I clearly support the intersex human rights movement (hi @intersexaus).

ihra.org.au/darlington-stateme

15/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

8) Support for the Darlington Statement is mutually exclusive from the GF wiki policies, the #ContributorCovenant and ALL policies and CoCs derived from them.
9) They are mutually exclusive because Tim Chevalier explicitly and intentionally crafted his policies to facilitate the enforcement of his view of us in any community in which those policies or their derivatives apply.

16/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

10) I believe that opposing the rights of #intersex people to #BodilyAutonomy is inherently #interphobic.
11) I believe that even if current medical interventions on intersex people do provide medical practitioners the means of honing the skills and knowledge to practice gender affirming care; that is not justification to use intersex people for that purpose.

17/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

12) To reiterate the previous point; I believe that intersex people are deserving of human rights and should not be used as experiments for the benefit of others.
13) I also believe that intersex people should be free to be who and what we are, and to express ourselves on these issues without censure or suppression from #endosex people (dyadic/endosex = not intersex).

18/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

Every project and organisation, whether commercial or not, which adopts any version of these policies in any capacity has the interphobia baked in. No ifs, buts, or maybes. As a consequence they are all interphobic.

Google is particularly egregious with this; having hired both Chevalier and #AdaInitiave co-founder, Mary Gardiner. They've made interphobia part of their culture.

19/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

That said, certain other projects have added worse things. #Drupal added a carefully crafted "Diversity Statement" to complement the CC which makes it impossible to have any contact with the project at all without agreeing to inherently interphobic policies. Thus insulating the project from anyone automatically excluded by the CC.

This has also been adopted by the #PythonSoftwareFoundation.

20/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

That last one is very disappointing for me.

I've been using #Python since 1999 and in 2018, while I was busy working on the official Python bindings of the #GnuPG #GPGME #C #API, the #PSF decided that I and everyone like me are persona non grata.

So be it.

21/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

It's not like no one at the #PSF knew this either. I raised it with @nedbat on IRC a few years ago. He even raised it as an issue in the CC issue tracker on #GitHub at that time. Coraline Ehmke closed the ticket citing, IIRC, "biological essentialism" as the reason for doing so.

Still, that didn't stop the PSF adopting the CC with the #Drupal Diversity Statement mod, so they're just as complicit.

22/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

Finally, before circling back, this last part is not directed at anyone explicitly tagged anywhere in this thread, but to people who come across it later (which is likely with all the hashtags used and the thread should be seen and boosted): I have a hard line, zero tolerance for interphobia. I will block and report interphobes and I will refute interphobic bullshit (at least sometimes).

Though if you read this far, that should be obvious.

23/24

Ben replied to Ben

@dalias @nemobis @davidgerard

So, to get back to your interpretation of these policies; no, it is not and never was a tool for furthering human rights. It is, and always has been, a means of enforcing a very narrow and specific view of human diversity which enables protections for some while explicitly targeting others for discrimination.

It is objectively harmful and readily weaponised because it was always intended to be weaponised.

24/24

Go Up