Josh's recent posts about monkeypox have me thinking about the dangers of being overly obsessed with "inclusion." A sizable and influential faction on the left seems to have decided that the most important thing in the world is to make sure that no one feels weird or stigmatized. That's fine in principle. We should want to be nice people.
But sometimes it really matters that someone is unusual! When I was little, there was a boy in my school who wore a bracelet to show that he was allergic to bees. It said something like, "Serious bee allergy, EpiPen in pocket." Having him wear that made his parents and the school feel okay about letting him play outside during recess. But kids being kids, he'd sometimes get made fun of for his "girly" bracelet. And yet no one, no one, suggested that every kid in school be made to wear a bee bracelet so he wouldn't feel weird. If everyone had a bee bracelet, that would entirely defeat the purpose of the kid with the actual allergy having one.
I feel like so much official messaging about monkeypox has been, "Everyone needs to wear a bee bracelet."
And that's not the only thing where people have been doing this. Talk about pronouns has taken this really weird shift lately where certain people are now advocating that EVERYONE introduce their pronouns. (I actually got berated by an activist for not including pronouns in my email signature at work. I so badly wanted to reply, "Um, this is an email. The only pronouns I'm using are 'I' and 'you.'")
But...doesn't that remove the whole point of introducing your pronouns? Like, wasn't the original purpose supposed to be a social nicety, a discreet way of signaling that you're worried about being misgendered and you want to save anyone the embarrassment of doing it?
If everyone's doing it, that signal is lost. There's no way to tell the people who really care about being misgendered from the people who are only stating their pronouns because they don't want to be perceived as a Bad Ally.
It just doesn't make sense to me. You can be sensitive and courteous and still realize that not all language can be "inclusive." Sometimes it can't be, not if the goal is to communicate necessary information to the audience that needs it.
That bee bracelet analogy is excellent and applies to other situations too, for example forcing very young children--i.e. those least at risk of suffering consequences from or spreading Covid--to wear masks at school, apparently in perpetuity in some cities.
I have thought about this in the context of hackathons at my work. They were popularized in the tech world as a way to solve a big problem by working on code for several hours straight (sometimes all night.)
Well, at my work, they wanted to make it inclusive so now anyone can be in the hackathon. So random business people can be like “I have an idea! Here’s a powerpoint!” And that’s their only contribution. And now it’s not even an in-person event anymore (so remote people can participate). So now it’s just another stupid hoop we have to jump through. Inclusion shouldn’t always be the highest goal for everything.
Yeah, I've really been noticing this in education policy, too, among the people who think that we shouldn't have advanced coursework or honors/AP classes. It just boggles my mind that they think the best way to educate bright students is to bore them out of their minds and make them hate school because everything is way too easy.
With apologies to the Barro-tariat commenting community, and I'm not sure this is exactly the right place to put this, but maybe it is useful for it to be said--
I am fairly young (in that coveted 18-49). As far as I can remember, I have never missed an election, and I have never voted for a Republican (each on the merits, not a party-line vote). I have a PhD--while I respect the trades greatly, I am bigly checking all sorts of socio-political-educational-economic boxes. Very bigger and very large than many people are saying, with tears in their eyes, very large and strong voters.
What the *fuck* does "cis" mean vis-a-vis "straight"?
All manner of personal regret to anyone who I may have offended--this is not my intent, and yet, I do ask sincerely. I can't be *that* unique, can I?
It means “not transgender.” I don’t love the terminology either. But I also haven’t seen an alternative, for where it needs to be specified. And I would note, sometimes people specify when they really shouldn’t, if they’re trying to be inclusive. For example, monkeypox risk is elevated for men who have sex with men — not just cis men, also trans men.
Very disrespectful for the 'pox to not center one's identity before infection.
Snark aside, I think a lot of regular-ass voters are trying to keep up and use language to describe so-and-so that so-and-so uses to describe themselves (my Charles Mann best-practice guideline), but that they also have limited brainspace that they're willing to allocate to the latest updates.
Public health official wants to avoid offending to keep his job. He’s worried that some dumb group of boring and bored twenty something’s will misconstrue reporting patterns as discrimination and demand his resignation.
In my opinion, there are two ways to interpret the interview with Tim Menza. One possibility is that he is just some functionary who is going through the motions and mouthing a bunch of woke-speak because he doesn't care, or is incompetent, or <put reasons here>.
Another alternative is that he knows exactly what's up, and really wants to say that this disease is almost completely confined to a particular subset of our society and is due entirely to a set of behaviors that this subset is more likely to engage in. And if he is smart and wants to keep his job, he is absolutely not going to say that. No way, no how. Some straight dude casting aspersions on the LGBTQ+ community, and calling them out for doing how they do? Come on now. That's not a thing. He would be done within the week. And if you think there is some way a cishet dude is going to be able to couch that information that wouldn't get the woke mob at his door, you just don't live in 2022.
You know what is a thing? Having somebody from the gay community provide the information. Josh Barro can talk all day long about what's up and what gay men should do to protect themselves, and nobody is going to call him out, or try to cancel him, because he is unimpeachable since he is part of the group.
So while I think Tim Menza's responses in that interview are just a bunch of useless woke word salads, and I would expect more from a health professional, I totally get it.
Oh. I didn't check that. In that case retract all I said.
I just looked him up and he's an HIV researcher FFS. And he's flying the rainbow flag? No excuse then. He's EXACTLY the person who should be clear and concise about what's going on instead of blathering on like that.
I totally respect that you admitted you were wrong, and I'm not trying to be a wise ass, I really want to know: what made you assume Menza is straight?
Probabilistically it's more likely, given that somewhere under ten percent of people are gay. And what he said and how he said it was exactly what I figured a straight white dude would say in that situation. As anodyne as possible, not to raise hackles.
To be clear I'm not sure he's gay. As an HIV researcher he may just fly the rainbow to show his bonafides. It may be presumptuous to assume it's anything more. Or maybe putting the flag on your Twitter page is 100% correlated with one's actual sexuality. I don't know
What's fascinating about bringing "assigned male at birth" into things is it reintroduces gender essentialism but woke. The reality is monkeypox is spreading through the community of men who have sex with men. A trans gay man who has a lot of sex with other men is very likely also at an elevated risk, whereas a straight trans man having sex with women is much safer. My understanding of the evidence is there isn't a gay sex magic that makes it spread monkeypox worse, it's just that men who have sex with men tend to be more promiscuous and engage in riskier behavior. Happening to have different genitals than other men is probably not going to help anyone banging their way through the MSM community.
Essentialism really is the word for some of this stuff, isn't it? I'm all for people living the way they want, but I wish it could be done with less "men are THIS and women are THAT" talk.
Josh, do you think public health officials should shut down gay bath houses, sex clubs, or kink festivals? Even if your run-of-the-mill hookups are the main source of spread, it could send a message to the gay community that this is a really serious disease.
Given our recent history with COVID, it seems that the only reason they haven’t done so already is because LGBT people are considered an oppressed class. What am I missing here?
If I remember right, those types of shutdowns (bathhouses etc) were implemented in the 80s in the hope of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS - especially in NYC and SF. And I think the consensus was that they didn't accomplish much. I did a ton of reading about this in college but that was over 20 years ago so I could be misremembering.
This is AIDS all over again. Even today, almost no one knows that heterosexual white (seldom use IV drugs) males are not at risk for AIDS. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html. (This is because AIDS is spread by anal sex and IV drug use in the US).
Josh, while I completely understand your frustration with the absurd messaging and that it calls into question the actual competence of these idiots, does it actually matter in this instance? You live in the gayest of gay communities. Do the at-risk people know that they are at-risk? Maybe the dual-messaging is silly and being done for dumb reasons, but not actually causing harm because the at risk populations are actually getting the right messages? (This is a sincere question, I don't know the answer).
I do live in the gayest of gay communities. I'm surrounded by people who are extremely plugged into gay conversations and gay media; most of them also have bachelors degrees and moderately-high to high incomes. I think they are generally well-apprised of what's going on with monkeypox. But they're not representative of men who have sex with men at large -- most of whom are not living in the gayest of gay communities.
Josh's recent posts about monkeypox have me thinking about the dangers of being overly obsessed with "inclusion." A sizable and influential faction on the left seems to have decided that the most important thing in the world is to make sure that no one feels weird or stigmatized. That's fine in principle. We should want to be nice people.
But sometimes it really matters that someone is unusual! When I was little, there was a boy in my school who wore a bracelet to show that he was allergic to bees. It said something like, "Serious bee allergy, EpiPen in pocket." Having him wear that made his parents and the school feel okay about letting him play outside during recess. But kids being kids, he'd sometimes get made fun of for his "girly" bracelet. And yet no one, no one, suggested that every kid in school be made to wear a bee bracelet so he wouldn't feel weird. If everyone had a bee bracelet, that would entirely defeat the purpose of the kid with the actual allergy having one.
I feel like so much official messaging about monkeypox has been, "Everyone needs to wear a bee bracelet."
And that's not the only thing where people have been doing this. Talk about pronouns has taken this really weird shift lately where certain people are now advocating that EVERYONE introduce their pronouns. (I actually got berated by an activist for not including pronouns in my email signature at work. I so badly wanted to reply, "Um, this is an email. The only pronouns I'm using are 'I' and 'you.'")
But...doesn't that remove the whole point of introducing your pronouns? Like, wasn't the original purpose supposed to be a social nicety, a discreet way of signaling that you're worried about being misgendered and you want to save anyone the embarrassment of doing it?
If everyone's doing it, that signal is lost. There's no way to tell the people who really care about being misgendered from the people who are only stating their pronouns because they don't want to be perceived as a Bad Ally.
It just doesn't make sense to me. You can be sensitive and courteous and still realize that not all language can be "inclusive." Sometimes it can't be, not if the goal is to communicate necessary information to the audience that needs it.
That bee bracelet analogy is excellent and applies to other situations too, for example forcing very young children--i.e. those least at risk of suffering consequences from or spreading Covid--to wear masks at school, apparently in perpetuity in some cities.
I have thought about this in the context of hackathons at my work. They were popularized in the tech world as a way to solve a big problem by working on code for several hours straight (sometimes all night.)
Well, at my work, they wanted to make it inclusive so now anyone can be in the hackathon. So random business people can be like “I have an idea! Here’s a powerpoint!” And that’s their only contribution. And now it’s not even an in-person event anymore (so remote people can participate). So now it’s just another stupid hoop we have to jump through. Inclusion shouldn’t always be the highest goal for everything.
Yeah, I've really been noticing this in education policy, too, among the people who think that we shouldn't have advanced coursework or honors/AP classes. It just boggles my mind that they think the best way to educate bright students is to bore them out of their minds and make them hate school because everything is way too easy.
With apologies to the Barro-tariat commenting community, and I'm not sure this is exactly the right place to put this, but maybe it is useful for it to be said--
I am fairly young (in that coveted 18-49). As far as I can remember, I have never missed an election, and I have never voted for a Republican (each on the merits, not a party-line vote). I have a PhD--while I respect the trades greatly, I am bigly checking all sorts of socio-political-educational-economic boxes. Very bigger and very large than many people are saying, with tears in their eyes, very large and strong voters.
What the *fuck* does "cis" mean vis-a-vis "straight"?
All manner of personal regret to anyone who I may have offended--this is not my intent, and yet, I do ask sincerely. I can't be *that* unique, can I?
It means “not transgender.” I don’t love the terminology either. But I also haven’t seen an alternative, for where it needs to be specified. And I would note, sometimes people specify when they really shouldn’t, if they’re trying to be inclusive. For example, monkeypox risk is elevated for men who have sex with men — not just cis men, also trans men.
Very disrespectful for the 'pox to not center one's identity before infection.
Snark aside, I think a lot of regular-ass voters are trying to keep up and use language to describe so-and-so that so-and-so uses to describe themselves (my Charles Mann best-practice guideline), but that they also have limited brainspace that they're willing to allocate to the latest updates.
Not snark, thank you for the answer.
Public health official wants to avoid offending to keep his job. He’s worried that some dumb group of boring and bored twenty something’s will misconstrue reporting patterns as discrimination and demand his resignation.
In my opinion, there are two ways to interpret the interview with Tim Menza. One possibility is that he is just some functionary who is going through the motions and mouthing a bunch of woke-speak because he doesn't care, or is incompetent, or <put reasons here>.
Another alternative is that he knows exactly what's up, and really wants to say that this disease is almost completely confined to a particular subset of our society and is due entirely to a set of behaviors that this subset is more likely to engage in. And if he is smart and wants to keep his job, he is absolutely not going to say that. No way, no how. Some straight dude casting aspersions on the LGBTQ+ community, and calling them out for doing how they do? Come on now. That's not a thing. He would be done within the week. And if you think there is some way a cishet dude is going to be able to couch that information that wouldn't get the woke mob at his door, you just don't live in 2022.
You know what is a thing? Having somebody from the gay community provide the information. Josh Barro can talk all day long about what's up and what gay men should do to protect themselves, and nobody is going to call him out, or try to cancel him, because he is unimpeachable since he is part of the group.
So while I think Tim Menza's responses in that interview are just a bunch of useless woke word salads, and I would expect more from a health professional, I totally get it.
I don't believe Menza is straight; he has a rainbow flag in the display name of what appears to be his Twitter account.
Oh. I didn't check that. In that case retract all I said.
I just looked him up and he's an HIV researcher FFS. And he's flying the rainbow flag? No excuse then. He's EXACTLY the person who should be clear and concise about what's going on instead of blathering on like that.
I totally respect that you admitted you were wrong, and I'm not trying to be a wise ass, I really want to know: what made you assume Menza is straight?
Probabilistically it's more likely, given that somewhere under ten percent of people are gay. And what he said and how he said it was exactly what I figured a straight white dude would say in that situation. As anodyne as possible, not to raise hackles.
To be clear I'm not sure he's gay. As an HIV researcher he may just fly the rainbow to show his bonafides. It may be presumptuous to assume it's anything more. Or maybe putting the flag on your Twitter page is 100% correlated with one's actual sexuality. I don't know
What's fascinating about bringing "assigned male at birth" into things is it reintroduces gender essentialism but woke. The reality is monkeypox is spreading through the community of men who have sex with men. A trans gay man who has a lot of sex with other men is very likely also at an elevated risk, whereas a straight trans man having sex with women is much safer. My understanding of the evidence is there isn't a gay sex magic that makes it spread monkeypox worse, it's just that men who have sex with men tend to be more promiscuous and engage in riskier behavior. Happening to have different genitals than other men is probably not going to help anyone banging their way through the MSM community.
Essentialism really is the word for some of this stuff, isn't it? I'm all for people living the way they want, but I wish it could be done with less "men are THIS and women are THAT" talk.
Josh, do you think public health officials should shut down gay bath houses, sex clubs, or kink festivals? Even if your run-of-the-mill hookups are the main source of spread, it could send a message to the gay community that this is a really serious disease.
Given our recent history with COVID, it seems that the only reason they haven’t done so already is because LGBT people are considered an oppressed class. What am I missing here?
If I remember right, those types of shutdowns (bathhouses etc) were implemented in the 80s in the hope of slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS - especially in NYC and SF. And I think the consensus was that they didn't accomplish much. I did a ton of reading about this in college but that was over 20 years ago so I could be misremembering.
This is AIDS all over again. Even today, almost no one knows that heterosexual white (seldom use IV drugs) males are not at risk for AIDS. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html. (This is because AIDS is spread by anal sex and IV drug use in the US).
Josh, while I completely understand your frustration with the absurd messaging and that it calls into question the actual competence of these idiots, does it actually matter in this instance? You live in the gayest of gay communities. Do the at-risk people know that they are at-risk? Maybe the dual-messaging is silly and being done for dumb reasons, but not actually causing harm because the at risk populations are actually getting the right messages? (This is a sincere question, I don't know the answer).
I do live in the gayest of gay communities. I'm surrounded by people who are extremely plugged into gay conversations and gay media; most of them also have bachelors degrees and moderately-high to high incomes. I think they are generally well-apprised of what's going on with monkeypox. But they're not representative of men who have sex with men at large -- most of whom are not living in the gayest of gay communities.