Opting Out of Discrimination (~1,600 words; 6 - 8 minute read)

Note: I was originally going to write this as a chapter for a book, but didn’t have the time to do so. I was sure I had published a version of this already, but couldn’t find it (it may have been a paragraph in a larger post), so have decided to finish and publish this now.

Some years ago, I was working at a company when one of the admin staff told me when the company end-of-year break up function would be. I responded by telling her we wouldn’t be going, and she was outraged.

“But you haven’t even talked to your partner!”

“Actually I have - we talked a long time ago, and decided we wouldn’t be attending.”

“But you didn’t know where it was going to be!”

“That is actually irrelevant.”

She couldn’t comprehend that:

a)      some people weren’t addicted to partying, 

b)      some people weren’t addicted to partying,

c)      people would choose not to go to an event over discrimination, and

d)      some people weren’t addicted to partying.

We had decided some years before that we wouldn’t go because I was being subjected to transphobic abuse by some people at the company (others were either neutral or supportive), and the values of the people at that company were generally far less progressive than ours.

It is still seen as somewhat … radical, but there is no law compelling you to put up with abuse - you can, often (not always), choose to opt out by not participating.

In terms of the example I’ve just given, would choosing to opt out of the company end-of-year break up function harm company cohesion?

Well, yes - at least to some small extent. However, the harm done to the company (including cohesion) by unrestrained discrimination was far worse.

Is choosing not to go something that will harm advocacy for increased inclusivity?

No.

In fact, not-going, not participating, and boycotting are forms of activism (numbers 55, 56, 61, 64, 65, 71, 72, 76 - 81, 123 – 126 and 128, on this list) that are readily accessible and have a long  history of use.

Furthermore, such actions can be used as an amplifier of activism – e.g., raise an issue and then advise that one feels one cannot (“in good conscience”) attend optional activities until the problem is resolved.

Going back to the end-of-year break up function, since the now long ago events described above, most companies seem to now require employees to pay for the end of year celebration. As those types of events are not the sort of event I like or choose to go to in my own time, I absolutely will NOT go if I also have to pay – which is a double penalty on top of having to give up time that I could be using to do something I enjoy.

A more recent area where I have considered these issues is that of air travel – internationally over the last couple of decades, and domestic in the last few months.

Given my experiences with international air travel, I now refuse to travel over safety and privacy concerns.

The privacy concerns relate to the combination of the powers of Border Force (as it now called here in Australia) to do search and seizure (including of digital, including compelling people to provide passwords) and the history of such authorities/staff of such authorities being discriminatory – including misgendering and laughing at trans and gender diverse (TGD) people, which is behaviour that causes mental health harm (well documented), to the point of causing suicide (based on lived experience).

Incidentally, the response to such harm is not to blame the victim and tell them they should get counselling: it is to compel the bigots to get effective counselling to overcome their bigotry, including any alleged lack of knowledge (which really does strain the bounds of credulity in this day and age), lack of competence at being a decent human being (also referred to as emotional intelligence), and unprofessionalism.

That also leads into the safety concerns – which predominantly is the profound risk to my safety and wellbeing of being subjected to transphobic abuse, as has happened many times that I have travelled.

I am extremely fortunate not to live in the Unexceptional States of America, where the TSA performs searches (which have been described as security theatre) that are basically a form of sexual assault – including on children. (For more on that, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and this utterly appalling, grossly offensive, unprofessional admission.)

Having seen the way some children react to what they are being subjected to, I cannot understand how any loving, or even responsible, parent would choose to subject them to that. (Incidentally, sexual assault of males IS possible, as is sexual assault by women – anyone who doubts that is a ******* - and I once [in the 1980s] had a social worker effectively try to justify sexual assaults on male children being committed by a girl on the grounds that she was a victim of sexual assault!).

There is also the undoubted impact of such behaviour on adults, particularly survivors of sexual assault. My opinion is that this has led to a reduction in the use of air travel, and have read articles supporting that. (One paper estimated a 6% reduction in air travel after 9/11 [an IATA paper here suggests 7% long term, 31% short term, decrease, although that is also attributable to fear of violent extremism - and thus the short term 31% decrease], and estimated the increase in car crashes to be equivalent to three jets crashing each year.) Those early articles included acknowledgement of the problem of being violated, but now seems to be misrepresented as only time delays – and sites attempting to question the practice have been blocked. Whoever is doing that is actively contributing to the mass sexual assaults of millions of people, and that will lead to widespread problems.

For me, the price of being subjected to violation is not worth the benefit of such travel.

The same applies to going to venues and events: if the conditions include being patted down or frisked, I will not go.

Others may weight the price and benefit differently (e.g., see here) – that is their right, and I will leave them to that PROVIDED they don’t try to belittle or change my assessment.

My concerns around air travel now extend to domestic.

So will my decisions have an economic impact?

As one individual out of many, no; however, there is evidence that possibly 6 - 7% of people feel the same way as I do (or made the same decision, to be more precise), and that does have an impact.

The other other unacknowledged impact is what being groped does to people – there will be a direct cost in terms of lost time at work, counselling, the effects of trauma, etc.

When air travel security acknowledges those impacts, and assessments balance the costs of reduced air travel and mental health impacts against the undoubted and major impacts of violent extremism, and airports stop being transphobic and otherwise bigoted, I may reconsider my decisions – at least as far as domestic travel is concerned.

With regard to international travel, there is also the effect of other discrimination – for instance, some nations kill LGBTIQA+ people. Obviously, that makes travel to such places utterly unacceptable for someone who is part of the LGBTIQA+ community, and yet I’ve had IPOCs try to suggest that is acceptable to take that risk by simply being silent about family – as if that doesn’t make it obvious anyway.

On top of that, having to be silent about one’s sexuality or gender identity actively harms mental wellbeing (e.g., see here, here, here, here, here, and here).

It is an utterly, utterly appalling suggestion to make.

And hence, no international travel.

But that is not the only place abuse can occur: families are not all loving and supportive – some are even actively abusive of children.

Some others, possibly overlapping with the child abusers, are discriminatory – and that also is something one can choose to opt out of.

You can choose also to go, or to go to some family events and not to others, but the point is: you have the right to choose.

Anyone who criticises you on the basis that people are supposed to tolerate flaws in family is, IMO, making cover ups of child abuse more likely, and should shut up.

And active abusers have no right to any contact at all.

Is this hard on the decent people in such situations?

Possibly.

However, putting up with abuse is harmful to oneself, and that also has to be a consideration – going into abusive situations for the sake of others need to be a very deliberate decision, and include safety and recovery measures, and advise to the people you are going of all that.

To sum up, will choosing not to participate in matters such as company social functions, air travel, and family events have an adverse impact (whether on the company, the economy, or the family)?

Yes - albeit fairly small in the case of the company, and insignificant in terms of the economy, given that we’re talking about just me, mostly (I’m OK with others choosing to go, as long as they respect my right not to do so).

The point is, I have the right to opt out of being discriminated against, when that choice is available to me (it can’t always be avoided).

What would it take for me to resume participating?

For those people, groups, and systems to choose to opt out of discrimination.