This is an extract from my latest activism email. I have also been working on a post on keeping unconscious bias out of governance before the news report triggered this email, and I will complete that post in due course, but probably in a different form than originally intended.
***
Dear Members of Parliament,
In my
opinion, the prison authorities in Iutruwita (aka "Tasmania") can be
held morally, but clearly not legally, responsible for manslaughter with a recent death of a transwoman in custody -
see https://www.abc.net.au/news/
When
I read things like that, I am glad my move from Queensland in the early
1980s did not take me to Tasmania, as originally planned, but rather to
Victoria. If I had gone to Tasmania, I suspect I would be long dead by
now - because of transphobia, probably death by suicide.
That is what transphobia does: it is a denial of reality (which means it is also a denial of nature) that incapacitates many people (including
those who are emotionally and intellectually crippled by that vile
disorder labelled transphobia, sometimes transmisia, or just anti-trans
hate), and causes deaths - or, at the very least, cripples lives.
Trans+ people do NOT
threaten children. The people doing that are the transphobes who are
attacking trans children by trying to deny those trans children care
that the objective experts in those fields describe as life saving.
Trans+ people do NOT constitute an elevated threat of sexual assault - every single one of the sexual assaults I have been subjected to - including as a child - was performed by a ciswoman.
The threat of concern here is transphobia - often conscious transphobia (sometimes justified by adherence to a backwards form of pseudo-religion), but also unconscious transphobia.
On religion, I despair every time I read of a probably traumatised by
pseudo-religion advocate for LGBTQIASB+ people attack all religion without thought.
Not all religions are bad.
I am Pagan (I
have been a Priestess in two traditions, Elder in one, but have since
left both those traditions [and wound one of them up, actually]), which is a group of faiths that has problems (some who claim to be Pagan [often Heathens] are white supremacists), but is a group of faiths united by reverence for the Earth / world of Nature. To us, as with Indigenous peoples of the world everywhere (and
noting that Paganism has been described as the Indigenous religion of
Europe - christianity and other Abrahamic religions came from West Asia), caring for the world is a religious duty (which caused me a few problems in my career before I retired).
Even if we consider Christianity (more accurately, in many cases, neo-christianity), many of those faiths are supportive of LGBTQIASB+ people - the media does a disservice to those faiths (and is professionally incompetent, IMO)
when it curates comments from religious people on LGBTQIASB+ people to
be only from the bigots, whose alleged faith is questionable (as
shown by those parents in Queensland a year or so ago who rejected
anti-LGBTQIASB+ actions of a private school their children attended as
contrary to the Apostolic Creed), rather than a true and accurate representation of all aspects of that religion.
My
opinion is that many of those backwards adherents to what is, frankly, a
perversion of what Christ taught, are conflating cultural behaviours
and their personal inadequacies & discomforts with a convenient
smokescreen labelled "[their version of] religion".
This
can lead to conscious transphobia, but that is often based in unconscious
personal inadequacies/insecurities - just as those LGBTQIASB+ advocates
who attack all religion without thought often do so without being fully,
consciously, aware of why they are reacting the way they do.
Were
those prison authorities in Iutruwita who consciously decided not to
exercise the options for prisoners at risk, fully aware of their own
biases? Were they possibly responding out of conscious bias, unconscious
bias, or a combination of those?
Did they place religious values they professed above their professional duty?
That this can and should be managed is shown by the decision - which I fully support - of Victoria Police a year or so ago to dismiss a police member who was being anti-LGBTQIASB+ on their social media accounts.
A
few years ago New York police took management of unconscious bias
seriously enough to implement a programme where key members monitored
themselves for unconscious bias and implemented programmes to manage
that.
And that is where the hope for managing unconscious bias lies: making the problem conscious, and then dealing with it.
(However,
the outcomes of that programme show changing minds is not enough on its
own: systemic issues, refinement of measures, etc also need to be
addressed - see:
My
opinion is that the assessment supports better informed use of such
training in conjunction with other measures, not
throw-the-baby-out-with-the-
This issue of unconscious bias also applies to some members of discriminated groups, with various forms of internalised phobia (e.g., internalised sexism, internalised racism, and internalised transphobia) - behaviour which I consider a form of Stockholm Syndrome, or, to phrase that differently, a (bad) survival tool. (I am currently attending an online summit on autism [see https://autismexplained.
The Tasmanian Coroner will no doubt - if they hold an enquiry, as is being urged - look into systemic failings involved in this death - and that performance of duty is as is intended.
However, our elected representatives - your good selves and our other elected representatives - have a duty, in my opinion, to take a broader view.
To
provide some context to that statement, technical experts in a field
can provide expert commentary on their technical aspects, but
consultation with people with lived experience (as the Victorian government has done and is doing in fields such as mental health),
and the position of MPs to take a broader overview, is how experts'
recommendations can become something beneficial and effective for the
whole community.
My near half a century in
the water industry has give me, I consider, good insight into the
technical expertise and the intellectual arrogance of experts - many of
whom, in the water industry, resisted the push to implement beneficial
reuse for decades because, in their limited perspective, costs were more
important than sustainability. I still see this with the
obtuseness/confusion of some engineers who do not understand that cost
is not why most people are adopting solar power: it is survival of the
human species. Measures such as citizens juries and good community
consultation fill in that missing understanding and perspective.
Overcoming
or, in some cases, putting such backwards views aside, is the role of
leaders - including, in that instance, the upper managers of water
Authorities, who have, in some cases, been far more realistically
positioned than the more narrowly focused experts (i.e., water engineers) who work for them.
Similar
leadership potential lie with our elected representatives - i.e., as I
termed it, your good selves and our other elected representatives.
In
general, I support the principle of addressing unconscious bias by
"making it conscious so it can be dealt with". Some of this is done by
existing education-style advocacy (and I have a soft spot for the old 1970s "conscious raising" - which some people still aim to do), but I consider the persistence of racist/white supremacist outcomes is an indication that more also needs to be done (but basic education must also continue - it plays an essential role, especially for those new to consideration of issues).
My
personal preference is that key members of our public services undergo
similar training to that used by New York police: test for unconscious
bias (including, and perhaps especially for, internalised phobias), and then implement a monitored management programme to deal with that problem.
This
is a major, intrusive step, but the powers of decision makers such as
Department heads is major - commensurate, in many ways, with the powers
of senior police, and, as the saying goes, with great power comes great
responsibility - and, in modern democracies, should also come with great
accountability (and I note actions towards such are underway - and I
also note that Parliamentary enquiries have been a largely effective
accountability tool).
In the absence
of such programmes, giving proper weight and credence to those with
lived experience is the counter to unconscious bias that must be used -
and is being done, for instance, in the case of Victoria's mental health
system, as I have already mentioned.
With
regard to transphobia, the most significant measure most trans+ people
are urging in response to the current wave of anti-trans hate is
effective anti-vilification protection, and a process for that is
underway in Victoria, but there are other measures.
I
am hoping the recently announced Victorian Coronial inquiry into
unrelated deaths by suicide of trans people will support what most of us
know, and that experts in this firled will make a careful
acknowledgement of (to an extent that they possibly consider will avoid being hassled by bigots):
misgendering and other forms of active transphobia kill people - and
not only through dereliction of duty, as may be the case in Iutruwita,
but also through causing death by suicide.
On racism, there are other measures which Indigenous people have been advocating for for some time now - notably, Australia committing
to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
which, to my great shame, we voted against in 2007, but apparently have
subsequently "expressed support for" ... but without formally adopting.
Doing so would be an excellent response following the devastating Voice referendum result.
Ensuring
comprehensive and effective implementation of all relevant Royal
Commissions, as both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have called
for, would be another.
And appointing an
Indigenous person, preferably an Indigenous woman, as Australia's next
Governor-General would be, in my opinion, another excellent response -
one not supported by all Indigenous people, but it would be a powerful
statement to racist/white supremacist Australians.
The other topic that this difference of opinions amongst Indigenous people raises, is trauma.
The trauma of victims is something that can be fairly obvious.
The experience of a lifetime of discrimination is also fairly well documented by mental health experts (I consider the work of Dr Gabor Maté particularly significant on trauma in a broader context).
Intergenerational trauma is something else for which there is some knowledge.
Less
well acknowledged is the trauma that afflicts some bigots - for
instance, parenting that instils hate is inherently emotionally and psychologically
traumatising.
Similar problems, I suspect,
can affect others with authority: they may have been so emotionally
scarred by experience/upbringing that it adversely influences how they
fulfil their duties.
To restate the
obvious, trauma also affects those on the receiving end of
discrimination as well, with the trauma of those receiving racist abuse
for their life in the USA, for instance, recently identified by mental
health experts as the same as troops in combat.
Trauma needs generally to be acknowledged and managed, in my opinion.
To
return to my suggestion of an Indigenous Governor-General, no doubt
there are similar measures that can be taken for other communities -
including LGBTQIASB+ and trans+ peoples, but the appointment of an
Indigenous Governor-General is a measure that would be timely.
In case they are of any use, here are some links regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
- https://social.desa.un.org/
issues/indigenous-peoples/ united-nations-declaration-on- the-rights-of-indigenous- peoples; - https://social.desa.un.org/
issues/indigenous-peoples/ historical-overview; - https://social.desa.un.org/
issues/indigenous-peoples/ undrip-in-languages - and I would love to see some key Indigenous language of Australia versions, either on the UN website or perhaps on appropriate government webpages (I will declare a personal bias towards Wiradjuri and Yugambeh, which are the languages of my birth family paternal grandmother's people); - https://humanrights.gov.au/
our-work/un-declaration- rights-indigenous-peoples-1; - https://declaration.
humanrights.gov.au/; and - https://lawcouncil.au/media/
media-releases/australia-must- formally-adopt-un-declaration- on-rights-of-indigenous-people .
I apologise for the length of this email.
As always, no reply to this email is necessary, and I am happy to discuss any/all of this further.
I
typically write "no action is expected", but I would like to see
measures such as an Indigenous Governor-General and effective national
anti-vilification protection of LGBTQIASB+ people. (Incidentally, I added S for sistergirl and B for brotherboy as recommended at https://theconversation.com/
Also, if anyone has a problem with "unconscious bias", they may be more comfortable with the euphemism "cognitive bias".
Assumptions / basis
In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following:
- this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan
Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If they are of any use of interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.