A month or so ago, I found out that there's a new version of Our Bodies, Our Selves in the works, through their blog. They wanted to be sure that they included some LGBT perspective, so I filled out their questionnaire. I figured I should do my part to have gay and genderqueer women represented in the puberty/women's health bible.
Then I found this. Awesomeness upon awesomeness. It's a resource guide of the Our Bodies, Our Selves variety, put together by a completely different team of people, and focused completely on trans and genderqueer issues. Identity, body stuff, legal stuff, it will all be in there. And that's amazing. If I had found a book like that at a library when I was fifteen it probably would have clarified a lot of things for me. I'm so happy that someone is finally putting something like this together. I added my two cents to the survey, and I'll probably submit cameos to
a few of the chapters as well.
The fact that a book like this can even be conceived is a sign that genderqueer people are actually beginning to be recognized as people now. The demographic is recognizable and extant and has purchasing power. This makes me incredibly glad.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Standards of Education
In Texas, a conservative constituent has succeed in passing a new set of standards for education, according to the Huffington Post. This isn't the usual evolution vs creationism debate. It actually avoids biology, as near as I can tell. This one focuses on history, economics, and sociology.
Some gems? The religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers will be addressed, but not the reasons behind the separation of church and state. Kids will be required to learn about John Calvin, but not Thomas Jefferson. And they will also be required to learn that the free market economy works best without government interference.
Now, I have no problem with talking about the faith of the Founding Fathers. Certainly many of them had deeply held religious beliefs. But they also, had strong philosophical beliefs founded in the ideas of the Enlightenment. These philosophies about the rights of men and about individual freedom of conscience had an equal if not greater influence on the formation of the Constitution than did any religious ideas. Likewise, John Calvin is a very important historical figure, and it's certainly good to know about him, but why on earth should a British religious reformer be taught at the expense of an American intellectual? Isn't it American history that we're teaching? And as far as the free market goes, yes, it does seem to be the most profitable economic system that we've come up with so far. But it's also brought us things like Enron, which clearly point to a need for significantly more market regulation than a pure free market philosophy would advise.
It could be worse, though. One of the amendments that fortunately got struck down was one that suggested that the civil rights movement created "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes." The fact that anyone would even think about making that statement part of a generation's educational standards is seriously bile-inducing. "No, kiddo, all these people marching for their rights...they're not actually oppressed, they just think they are! Someone should just tell them what their place is so they don't get any unrealistic ideas..." Bleh.
Really, my main problem is that education should not be so politically driven. I understand the concept that you have to "get them while they're young" if you want kids to later subscribe to almost any ideology. But what about the idea of an actual education? What about educating kids so that they'll actually learn to think well about different ideas and later do well in college? Isn't that supposed to be the point of education in general? That should be more important than which historical figures you include or exclude, and it should prohibit you from only teaching certain facts about an event or period in history while willfully ignoring others. Intellectual honesty, people. I don't care what you choose to believe based on your analysis of the facts. I just want to know that you actually have the facts, all of them, and that you're actually, amazingly, using your ability to think.
Some gems? The religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers will be addressed, but not the reasons behind the separation of church and state. Kids will be required to learn about John Calvin, but not Thomas Jefferson. And they will also be required to learn that the free market economy works best without government interference.
Now, I have no problem with talking about the faith of the Founding Fathers. Certainly many of them had deeply held religious beliefs. But they also, had strong philosophical beliefs founded in the ideas of the Enlightenment. These philosophies about the rights of men and about individual freedom of conscience had an equal if not greater influence on the formation of the Constitution than did any religious ideas. Likewise, John Calvin is a very important historical figure, and it's certainly good to know about him, but why on earth should a British religious reformer be taught at the expense of an American intellectual? Isn't it American history that we're teaching? And as far as the free market goes, yes, it does seem to be the most profitable economic system that we've come up with so far. But it's also brought us things like Enron, which clearly point to a need for significantly more market regulation than a pure free market philosophy would advise.
It could be worse, though. One of the amendments that fortunately got struck down was one that suggested that the civil rights movement created "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes." The fact that anyone would even think about making that statement part of a generation's educational standards is seriously bile-inducing. "No, kiddo, all these people marching for their rights...they're not actually oppressed, they just think they are! Someone should just tell them what their place is so they don't get any unrealistic ideas..." Bleh.
Really, my main problem is that education should not be so politically driven. I understand the concept that you have to "get them while they're young" if you want kids to later subscribe to almost any ideology. But what about the idea of an actual education? What about educating kids so that they'll actually learn to think well about different ideas and later do well in college? Isn't that supposed to be the point of education in general? That should be more important than which historical figures you include or exclude, and it should prohibit you from only teaching certain facts about an event or period in history while willfully ignoring others. Intellectual honesty, people. I don't care what you choose to believe based on your analysis of the facts. I just want to know that you actually have the facts, all of them, and that you're actually, amazingly, using your ability to think.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
What Sex is Your Brain?
Today, salon.com posted an article about brain sex, including a link to a quiz powered by the BBC. Naturally curious, I took the quiz to determine whether or not my brain is male or female.
The quiz consists of six sections, each of which is supposed to determine a different aspect of your brain's gender. Part one of the test measures your ability to match different angles, generally considered to be a more male ability. Part two asks you to clasp your hands together and then indicate which thumb is on top, which theoretically tells you which side of the brain is dominant. Part three test your ability to "empathise and systemize," and part four tests your ability to recognize emotions based on pictures of peoples' eyes. Part four asks you to measure your fingers, part five asks you to compare different faces for overall attractiveness, and part six asks you to rotate 3D shapes in your mind.
My result? Completely gender neutral. Big surprise. Behold: I'm smack dab in the middle.
While I'm gratified to find that there's semi-scientific evidence that backs up my general feelings of genderfuck, I have to question certain aspects of the test. The segments testing the ability to recognize angles and mentally rotate complex objects are fairly straightforward and standard, and the word association section is badly designed but otherwise not problematic.
Some of the other sections, though, are pretty dubious. Mainly I have to question two: the finger length and the attractiveness scale tests. Finger length definitely says something about prenatal hormones: most straight men and lesbians have a longer ring fingeer than index finger, and most straight women and gay men have longer index fingers than ring fingers. I certainly have classic lesbian fingers, and I can see the value in looking at finger length as part of overall gender development. But I question the place of finger measurements in what is otherwise an almost wholly cognitive test. Likewise I question the right-side/ left-side dominance test as determined by which thumbs you cross. It doesn't seem to take into account right- and left-handedness, which to the best of my knowledge are evenly distributed between the genders.
Beyond the finger tests, I have to question the attractiveness test. In this test, the subject is asked to differentiate between several similar faces and indicate which one they find most attractive. According to the results, I prefer more "feminine" features. Well enough. But through that whole section, I was thinking that none of the people photographed were people I'd be likely to ask on a date. And because the pictures were photoshopped to emphasize or de-emphasize certain features (to be more "masculine" or "feminine," though I don't know how they define those terms), I generally found the photos that had been tinkered with the least to be the most attractive. So the data may be skewed.
I do find gender differences fascinating. And I would love to see a more in-depth and expansive study or self-quiz to determine how peoples' brains are gendered. As salon says, this is your average Cosmo-type quize, only with a dash of science thrown in. When they come up with a quiz that's more science and less Cosmo, I'll be very interested to see the results.
The quiz consists of six sections, each of which is supposed to determine a different aspect of your brain's gender. Part one of the test measures your ability to match different angles, generally considered to be a more male ability. Part two asks you to clasp your hands together and then indicate which thumb is on top, which theoretically tells you which side of the brain is dominant. Part three test your ability to "empathise and systemize," and part four tests your ability to recognize emotions based on pictures of peoples' eyes. Part four asks you to measure your fingers, part five asks you to compare different faces for overall attractiveness, and part six asks you to rotate 3D shapes in your mind.
My result? Completely gender neutral. Big surprise. Behold: I'm smack dab in the middle.
While I'm gratified to find that there's semi-scientific evidence that backs up my general feelings of genderfuck, I have to question certain aspects of the test. The segments testing the ability to recognize angles and mentally rotate complex objects are fairly straightforward and standard, and the word association section is badly designed but otherwise not problematic.
Some of the other sections, though, are pretty dubious. Mainly I have to question two: the finger length and the attractiveness scale tests. Finger length definitely says something about prenatal hormones: most straight men and lesbians have a longer ring fingeer than index finger, and most straight women and gay men have longer index fingers than ring fingers. I certainly have classic lesbian fingers, and I can see the value in looking at finger length as part of overall gender development. But I question the place of finger measurements in what is otherwise an almost wholly cognitive test. Likewise I question the right-side/ left-side dominance test as determined by which thumbs you cross. It doesn't seem to take into account right- and left-handedness, which to the best of my knowledge are evenly distributed between the genders.
Beyond the finger tests, I have to question the attractiveness test. In this test, the subject is asked to differentiate between several similar faces and indicate which one they find most attractive. According to the results, I prefer more "feminine" features. Well enough. But through that whole section, I was thinking that none of the people photographed were people I'd be likely to ask on a date. And because the pictures were photoshopped to emphasize or de-emphasize certain features (to be more "masculine" or "feminine," though I don't know how they define those terms), I generally found the photos that had been tinkered with the least to be the most attractive. So the data may be skewed.
I do find gender differences fascinating. And I would love to see a more in-depth and expansive study or self-quiz to determine how peoples' brains are gendered. As salon says, this is your average Cosmo-type quize, only with a dash of science thrown in. When they come up with a quiz that's more science and less Cosmo, I'll be very interested to see the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
