Category: language

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Branding, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Media Ethics, Mindset, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I finally got around to watching Jon Stewart’s return monologue. Yuck! I was a fan of Jon Stewart but this is ageist crap! Yes, Biden is old. So is Trump, as Stewart admits. While I have plenty of bones to pick with Biden (and I’ve been in the streets protesting some of his policies, especially around immigration and the Gaza war), we don’t have ranked choice voting in US presidential elections. And that means that absent some deep and unpredicted shift in the political landscape, either Biden or Trump will be elected in November.

There are many reasons to vote for Biden over Trump. While flawed (as we all are), he’s a basically decent person who has mostly used his time in office to better the lives of ordinary USArians and to improve the condition of the world. And despite a completely dysfunctional Congress, he has still managed to:

Now, about his opponent:

 

Bias Against Biden

Biden is not an existential threat to democracy. Biden was handed a government in complete chaos that had burned bridges with many of its allies and built back a functional government that honors its promises. Biden is about the good of the country, while Trump appears to be mostly concerned with leveraging his position for profit and inflating his already overweight ego. And Biden’s record of accomplishment after three years in office far outstrips Trump’s four years. 

So please tell me why the media is constantly dissing Biden because of his age and a perceived lack of mental acuity that by any reasonable standard is in better shape than Trump’s. How is it, for example, that the Washington Post (a liberal newspaper that prides itself on good journalism) actually ran a chart comparing how old Biden would be at the END of a second term with Trump’s age at the BEGINNING of a second term. 

I have that chart in an email dated February 9, 2024 entitled “The 5-Minute Fix: How should Democrats address Biden’s unpopularity?”; I can’t find it on washingtonpost.com and therefore can’t link to it. Because it’s copyrighted material, I can’t reproduce it here, but I’d be glad to forward that newsletter to anyone who requests it through the contact form. I can also link to the February 10th Today’s Edition Substack  newsletter by Robert Hubbell that mentions this chart along with five front-page New York Times stories about Biden’s age. And these are the liberals! WTF?

 

Proof that Age Doesn’t Matter

Finally, let’s look at five among thousands of models for aging with power:

  • Grandma Moses had a 25-year career as a painter, BEGINNING AT AGE 76
  • Pete Seeger was still writing and recording songs well into his 90s
  • Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa at age 76
  • My friends Frances Crowe and Arky Markham were both still activists on their 100th birthdays
  • Gray Panthers founder Maggie Kuhn and sexologist Dr. Ruth Westheimer were working on the sexuality of old people into their 80s (disclosure: I was a VISTA organizer for the Gray Panthers in 1979-80 and met Maggie once when she was 75)

You are never too old—or too young—to make a difference. Jon Stewart should know better, and so should we. Work to get ranked-choice voting and other reforms such as those outlined at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/its-time-to-talk-about-electoral-reform/ (scroll down to the section entitled “A range of possible electoral reforms”).

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Entrepreneurship, General Commentary, Innovation, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Guest post from Bob Burg—may it inspire your success in 2024. I first discovered Bob through a newsletter he used to do called Winning Without Intimidation, some time in the 1990s–which was all about getting your desired outcome through kindness, compassion, and empathy. I still use many of those teachings.

Bob Burg, speaker and author on success through kindness and compassion
Bob Burg, speaker and author on success through kindness and compassion

He published this in his current newsletter, Daily Impact, on December 29. I just love the frame that only one partner has to think of an interaction as a collaboration to achieve dramatic success, even if the other party sees an adversary. What a wonderful abundance frame—and so applicable to entrepreneurs! You can subscribe at Burg.com (scroll down to just above the footer). Used with Bob’s permission.

—Shel

 

Use This Concept, Which Is So Much More Productive Than Competition…

By Bob Burg

It ranks right up there with my all-time favorite quotes:

“I never saw the opposing pitcher as my adversary, but rather as my ‘partner’ in hitting home runs.” ~Sadaharu Oh (868 Home Runs)

This statement is perhaps the ultimate in collaboration.

And the Japanese professional baseball legend knows what he’s talking about. He remains the all-time leading home run hitter in the world…ever!

“But,” you might ask, “certainly the pitcher isn’t wanting to collaborate on this. The pitcher wants to strike the batter out, right?”

Indeed! Which leads to a very important truth…

Key Point: There are times when both parties don’t even need to be in on the collaboration in order for it to occur.

As long as at least one of the parties involved — whether we’re talking about an interpersonal conflict, a business negotiation, or a home run — has the proper attitude, they will approach the situation from a frame of collaboration, which is really nothing less than a frame of love.

And love conquers all.

You could even say that…it’s the ultimate home run.

Today’s Exercise: Recall a time when you witnessed collaboration, even though only one person *at first* seemed to be “in on it.” Based on the attitude of the first person, did the second person seem to naturally become more involved?

Now think about how *you* can set a frame of collaboration, even when the other person isn’t quite in on it…yet.

Best regards,

Bob

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Environment, language, Mindset, Politics, propaganda, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Science, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

I often find myself disagreeing with, disappointed in, and even demonstrating against President Biden’s policies.

And yet, assuming he’s the candidate in November, he will get my vote. I admit he might not if the US had adopted ranked-choice voting. But until it does, a vote for any third-party candidate is a vote for the main opponent of your preferred candidate. More importantly, I believe that the bad things Biden has done have been part of his own effort—sometimes accurate and sometimes off-base—to leave the world  better than he found it. He is, fundamentally, a good person, And despite never having a majority in both houses of Congress, he’s done quite a bit of good as president:

  • Shepherding a phenomenal economic turnaround, the best post-COVID economy in the world, and creating or recovering hundreds of thousands more jobs
  • Replacing skepticism with science on topics ranging from global climate change to the safety of COVID vaccines
  • Restoring US leadership on the world stage after it was torn to shreds by his predecessor
  • Supporting labor, the middle class, the poor, and the disenfranchised—and doing his best to hold big corporations and the super-rich accountable for dong their part
  • Championing the right to vote—and the right to have that vote properly counted

As I write this BEFORE the first primaries and caucuses, that opponent is likely to be the orange-haired former president. Yeah, the guy who is facing more than 90 felony counts, who has bragged about a history of sexual abuse (and been accused of many others and found liable in one he didn’t admit to). The serial liar who was caught in 30,000 false statements just during his four-year presidency. The narcissist who thinks rules and laws don’t apply to him. The person who stacked the Supreme Court with people who have undermined the values shared by most US citizens, overturned longstanding legal precedents, and for the first time in modern history, stripped away the rights of whole classes of people.

And, let’s not forget, the man who has promised that if he is elected, he will focus not on governance, not on the economy, not on human rights—but on revenge against his perceived enemies, active harassment of people who might be a different color, ethnicity, political philosophy or religion, and who repeatedly uses language straight out of Hitler.

Yesterday, Christmas 2023, both men issued Christmas messages. Robert Hubbell devoted his daily newsletter to these messages—and their contrasts couldn’t be more stark. Biden spoke of unity, teamwork, kindness, and hope. But DT used his bully pulpit to wish that those he perceives as “EVIL and SICK…THUGS” (which includes the military and those who favor electric cars) “ROT IN HELL” (capitalization is his).

Please make sure you’re registered to vote. That your friends know why you will vote for Biden. And that the records of these two men while in office leave no choice.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Consumer Issues, Democracy, Diversity, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

The Washington Post’s Robert Kagan outlined a dismal road to fascism if DT is somehow elected in 2024. Read his piece and then come back here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/30/trump-dictator-2024-election-robert-kagan/ 

DT is likely to win the nomination, yes. And should he win in November, a second DT presidency would be far, far worse than the train wreck of his 2017-2021 term. The one thing DT tends to be truthful about is his penchant for cruelty and vengeance. His own and his advisors’ statements have made it clear that they intend to destroy the surviving parts of US democracy, seek revenge on anyone they see as an enemy, and create an authoritarian state that would imprison or deport opponents.

But Kagan is forgetting something really important: Winning the nomination is not the same as winning the election.

MAGA Republicans will nominate him, but moderate Republicans, Independents, swing voters, and of course, Democrats will not support another DT presidency. Add to that the millions of new young voters since 2016, the interest groups DT continues to alienate, and those who remember the DT years for the chaos, the dysfunction, the sowing of hatred against people of color, LGBT folks, women, scientists, Muslims, and oh yes, the attempted coup. Those who value women’s reproductive rights, voting rights for urban Black voters, diversity, education, religions other than White Nationalism disguised as a warped form of Christianity, the US’s status as a world leader, a Supreme Court that values settled precedent, and even ethical capitalism can find no home in a Republican Party led by a self-admitted sexual predator, a serial liar with 30,573 documented falsehoods just during his four years in the White House, an open bigot, a man who faces 91 criminal charges in multiple jurisdictions and has already been found to have committed fraudulent business practices, a deadbeat who doesn’t pay his bills and has no loyalty to even his most loyal henchmen, a man who continuously used the presidency for his/his family’s financial gain, who even his own first Secretary of State called a moron.

It is true that Biden will be a hold-your-nose choice for many. I am not happy with his horrible immigration policies, his greenlighting of environmentally destructive fossil fuel projects, and his lack of ability to curb violence against civilians in other parts of the world. But we don’t have ranked-choice voting in the US, and until we do, a vote for a third-party or a choice not to vote is a vote for DT, for authoritarianism, and quite possibly for fascism. I think enough people will realize this truth that if voters are allowed to vote and votes are counted honestly, DT will not win.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in censorship, Ethics in Government, language, Politics, propaganda, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

No—but he may as well be. When I was a kid in the 1960s, we were told that Soviet schools (especially during the Stalin years) were places of indoctrination, not learning. They were propaganda factories churning out children whose world view was all about how great our then-enemy (and again enemy, since it invaded Ukraine) was—who would grow up to be dupes, unquestioning of their country’s moral, economic, and military superiority, etc. The same was true—and this we know as fact—of the schools the Nazis ran.

Of course, US schools, and the schools of pretty much any country, have also served a propaganda function. Schools are designed to raise children who would be complicit in or even participate in such things as the US’s involvement in numerous imperialist wars. Those wars are attempts to prop up a deadly version of capitalism whose place in developing countries was to exploit the resources—and not to worry about how many of the locals were killed or brutalized in the process. And again, the US was not alone. Ask in India about the Brits, in Congo about the Belgians, in South Africa about the Dutch, in Armenia about the Turks, in First Nations in Canada and the US about the history of their relations with White-run governments.

These days in most of the US and in other democracies, a more nuanced version of history is taught. History usually recognizes the moments where a country went astray, looks at the reasons, and at least casually discusses the consequences.

But in Florida, starting this month, that is no longer true. Heather Cox Richardson devoted her newsletter this morning to exploring the white supremacist fantasy that Florida now calls history and requires its teachers to teach. And I call the Florida curriculum a total distortion of truth. Read her column! It’s crucial to understand what’s going on in the battle for our children’s minds and souls.

Of course, this rogue state under Ron DeSantis has had a problem with truth telling for a while. It has a nasty habit of censoring anything that makes someone—at least a conservative White, cis, hetero, and male someone with no disabilities—a little uncomfortable. This is the state where it’s illegal for a teacher to mention LGBT folks, let alone that we are normal and part of the diversity that makes our country great. (I identify as bisexual so I include myself in that community.) Where it’s illegal for a teacher to point out that systemic racism still exists in the US. Where book banning has taken more than 300 books out of classrooms and libraries. And where DeSantis forced curriculum and management changes at a well-known progressive college in the state system that resulted in another progressive college, an expensive private school near me, offering to accept students from there at the same low tuition cost they’d been paying (and several accepted).

Unfortunately, while its approach is extreme, Florida isn’t alone. Other states are passing similar laws in a foolish counterrevolution that will dull the ability of its students to think, to make ethical choices, and ultimately, to show leadership. In addition to the obvious consequences of attacking human rights of those other than conservative White, cis, hetero, and male, this regressive path, in my opinion, leads to intellectual stagnation and the US falling behind other countries in the quality of our science, invention, and achievement. So in both moral and practical terms, it’s a disaster.

Fight for our right as a nation to have a REAL education! Support teachers and librarians! And most importantly, vote the censors who would drum critical thinking out of our children and turn them into compliant automatons out of office!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Diversity, Eco-friendly, Environmenl, Ethics: General, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, language, Mindset, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Sexuality and Gender, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

El Greco's painting of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. Via Wikipedia.
El Greco’s painting of Jesus chasing the money changers out of the temple. Via Wikipedia.

There is a part of me that hopes the Republican Party nominates DeSantis, because when he loses the general election by a huge margin, it will be a repudiation of the entire loathsome cloak of hatred that DT and RDS both stand for. No one will be able to make a case that it was merely a rejection of DT’s criminal activity, egomania, lack of loyalty to those who stood by him, and/or incompetence.

While RDS shares and even exceeds DT’s vile politics, and has an equally thin skin, he at least appears to be rational and is not shadowed by a long list of personal scandals and accusations of criminality for personal benefit. The crimes he is accused of, such as breaking laws and misusing Florida tax dollars in deceiving immigrants to board planes from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, have been about his policies–like those of the equally creepy governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, who booby-trapped the Rio Grande to prevent an influx of immigrants, breaking maritime laws and hurting local businesses in the process.

I like to think–and maybe it’s a delusion–that the vast majority of US voters want no truck with either of these men’s open racism, homophobia/transphobia, self-defined “Christian” nationalism, xenophobia, attacks on women’s reproductive rights, love of guns more than the right not to be randomly shot, and all the rest of it.

Why do I put “Christian” in quotes? Because Christ, based on my reading of the Four Gospels, would have had no truck with their bigotry in His name. Christ’s morals were about helping the poor, the downtrodden, those disabled and ostracized because of disease. Christ threw the moneychangers and merchants–the apex capitalists of their era–out of the Temple. He blessed the peacemakers and the poor and the meek, rescued a woman about to be stoned to death for violating sexual mores, embraced people of other cultures–the Samaritans were a despised cultural group, so it was a big deal for him to talk about the Good Samaritan.

Contemporary right-wing bigots treat immigrants and refugees as subhuman, while Jesus proclaimed, “Welcome the stranger!” They demand an end to the slightest restrictions on guns, while Jesus preached nonviolence not just in offering the other cheek to an attacker who strikes your cheek, but condemning even thoughts of hating another.

If I were to flag every passage of Jesus living His life and preaching His truth in direct opposition to the intolerance, violence, and small-mindedness of these “Christians,” this post would go on for many pages. But the elevator-pitch version is simply this: If you call yourself a Christian and claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, you must be willing to accept and even celebrate values like peace, nonviolence, diversity, equality, respect for the natural environment, fair treatment of “the stranger” (immigrants, those of different races or ethnicities or gender orientation), and improving the lot of the poor and the ostracized.

And as an immigration justice, social justice, and environmental activist who has read the Gospels more than once even though I’m not a Christian, I welcome His allyship.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, language, Media Ethics, Mindset, propaganda, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bothsidesim, as you might have guessed, is the mainstream media’s tendency to pretend that reporting objectively requires covering “both sides” with equal weight. But here are a few problems with that approach:Free scales of justice judge justice illustration

  1. Often, there are many more than two sides. Bothsidesism pushes other voices and more nuanced analysis to the margins, just as the two-party system that drives most US politics. Not everything can be separated into either/or, black/white, environmentally friendly/environmentally harmful. A great example would be US Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s, where Justices would frequently write concurring opinions that raised issues and perspectives outside the “official” opinion (this is less true of the current court, which disposes of many cases in the “shadow docket“).
  2. When there are just two sides, one side may be well-reasoned and make a compelling case, while the other puts forth “alternative facts“–in other words, lies–to build a case based on demagoguery or deceit. (The link goes to an NBC clip of then presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway, 2 minutes in, introducing the term in an interview early in the term of the 45th US president–and the interviewer, Chuck Todd, calling her out immediately.)
  3. Bothsidesim turns any contest of ideas into a “horse race” where the issues get swept aside in favor of who appears to be the better debater.

The current “debate” over DT’s federal indictment in the document-hiding case shows what happens when bothsidesim runs amok–and this is NOT about Republican vs. Democrat.  While some media fall all over themselves to cry, “both sides did this,” quoting hyperpartisan pols like Ted Cruz, there is a lot of similarity between the approaches of Republican former VP Mike Pence and Democratic former VP (now president) Joe Biden, and basically none between either of them and DT.

What differentiates the cases of Pence and  Biden from DT’s is simple: The two former VPs immediately notified government agencies and cooperated fully, while DT reportedly was personally involved in hiding documents and telling the government there were no more. It took Pence’s team just three days to turn over the documents; Biden’s response was even quicker, and the documents were delivered one day after discovery.

DT falsely claimed all the documents had already been turned in and stalled so long that the government sent in the FBI to retrieve them. Also, DT’s document trove reportedly includes important military secrets, and DT showed these to people who were not authorized to see them–potentially putting our country and its military at risk.

It’s interesting that some of the most sycophantic yes-men of the DT years–not just Pence but also former Attorney General William Barr and former National Security Advisor John Bolton–have broken with DT over his handling of the matter.

The astute historian Heather Cox Richardson provides an equally current example thousands of miles outside the US. She quotes Timothy Snyder, a Yale scholar of authoritarianism on the recent Russian attack on Ukraine’s Nova Kakhovka Dam:

Snyder warned journalists not to “bothsides” the story by offering equal time to both sides. “What Russian spokespersons have said has almost always been untrue, whereas what Ukrainian spokespersons have said has largely been reliable. The juxtaposition suggests a false equality,” he wrote. “The story doesn’t start at the moment the dam explodes. For the last fifteen months Russia has been killing Ukrainian civilians and destroying Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, whereas Ukraine has been trying to protect its people and the structures that keep them alive.” “Objectivity does not mean treating an event as a coin flip between two public statements,” he said. “It demands thinking about the objects and the settings that readers require for understanding amidst uncertainty.”

Let’s hope that becomes the mantra for journalists everywhere.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Copywriting, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Psychology Tagged with , , , , ,
We all know how dangerous a drug overdose is. A particular drug maybe terrific in the right quantities for healing and illness, but too much can be fatal.

But did you know the same thing can be true for overused words?
I just read an email promoting a workshop with a product naming expert. The writer used the word “moniker” 9 times in a 372-word promo. For me, the first use (in the name of the workshop) was absolutely appropriate. The second felt like an interruption, and each subsequent use felt more intrusive, especially when the word appeared in four out of five consecutive bullets. Maybe this writer was trying to make a point by hammering us with this somewhat unusual word. But to me, the message was “I am so thrilled with this word that I’m going to just keep getting you over the head with it.” Well it wasn’t fatal, it was definitely an overdose. It lowered my respect for this writer and built up my resistance to the word.

I hope it doesn’t cause me to think less of the next writer who uses the word once, appropriately–because of the bad association this one writer created.
And the word is so specific that Thesaurus.com only lists eight synonyms, including equally odd ones like “appellation” and “sobriquet” along with some actually usable ones like “tag” and “label.” But “name” has 43 choices, with several others at “names” and “naming.”
In fairness, most of the words that turned up would not be the right word in this promo. If I’d written the piece, I might have relied heavily on the unobtrusive “name” and “product name,” with occasional sprinkles of “brand” and “label,” maybe even “tag” or”term.” Yeah, and I might use “moniker”–but only once. “Sobriquet” would not make it into my draft.
This was an extreme example because of the concentration in such a small space. But even if I am reading a book of several hundred pages, unusual words will annoy me if they are repeated too often. It is much better to use the common word, in this case name, or perhaps product name, than to make the reader feel like they are walking on sharp objects barefoot. You don’t want to bleed them to death, after all.
But don’t make the opposite mistake of using a different highly self-conscious word every time you need a synonym. That is almost as intrusive. Use words that flow naturally and sound like human speech.
So, when you are reading over your drafts, look for repetitions that call too much attention to themselves and not enough to what they are talking about. It takes 30 seconds with the thesaurus in your word processor or on the web to find good substitutes. And save the words that call attention to themselves for the times you really want to call attention to something in your text. Use those words with grace, power, and subtlety.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Ethics-International, General Commentary, language, Mindset, Peace and War, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , ,

Ramadan started Wednesday. Passover starts next Wednesday. Easter weekend begins two days after Passover. And today, the Wednesday halfway between the starts of these sacred Muslim and Jewish celebrations, we mourn. Again.

As a Jew, I’ll be celebrating Passover Seders next week with family and friends. Part of the Seder is a song called “Dayenu,” which means “It would have been enough for us.” The song thanks God for many miracles involving the exodus from Egypt and the journey across the desert.

Many Jews also add a second text: “Lo Dayenu”: It is NOT Enough for Us.” In the modern Midrashic tradition, lots of people have written their own versions. I like this “Lo Dayenu,” by Joy Stember.

Social Justice "Lo Dayenu" Seder reading by Joy Stember
Social Justice “Lo Dayenu” Seder reading by Joy Stember

With the six deaths in Nashville yesterday, the grisly total of people in the US killed in school mass shootings from Columbine in 1999 through yesterday has grown again. It reached 554 10 months ago. 554 children and adults who died for no reason other than a broken political process that gets in the way of even the most basic protection from gun violence. While they are quick to offer another round of “thoughts and prayers,” they offer no action. It is easier to get an assault rifle than a license to cut hair.

Interestingly, many of the guns-uber-alles crowd are the same people who suddenly discover that life is sacred after all, as long as it’s a life inside a pregnant woman (a position that happens to violate several religious traditions that consider the life of the mother more important than the life of an unborn fetus). But apparently, once these kids are born, they’re no longer important.

Here’s a basic human decency rule I’d love to see taught in every classroom, reinforced in every workplace and community gathering: Freedom TO take an action stops when it interferes with another person’s freedom FROM harm. By my logic, the freedom to own or use an assault rifle–a weapon of mass destruction–is overridden by the freedom from being randomly shot.

And here are a few “Lo Dayenu” verses I just wrote:

If we could block killers from having access to assault rifles,
But allow them to enter schools, cultural venues, places of worship, and public spaces with other murder weapons,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

If we could have international peace meetings and far-reaching agreements,
But still “solve” international disputes with war,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

If we address the violence of mass shootings,
But not address the violence of poverty and starvation, or of rape and beatings,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

If we reach the ability of people around the world to live in harmony with each other,

But fail to curb violence against the planet,
Lo dayenu. It would not be enough for us.

Please feel welcome to add other verses in the comments.

May whatever holidays you celebrate be joyous, despite the troubled world we share. And may we come together with both our Dayenus of gratitude and our Lo Dayenus of work that we still need to do.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Diversity, language, Sexuality and Gender, Shel's Personal Life, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , ,

Someone on Quora asked, “How do you tell someone their name is wrong?”

A kindergarten classroom similar to what I experienced in 1961. Via Wikimedia Commons, credited to Yogurt yeah. Full attribution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kindergarten_class_early_1970s.jpg
A kindergarten classroom similar to what I experienced in 1961. Via Wikimedia Commons, credited to Yogurt yeah. Full attribution: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kindergarten_class_early_1970s.jpg

That question brought up a painful long-ago memory. I responded, “Two weeks into kindergarten, I was transferred to a new school. On my arrival day, the teacher said, “I hope you spell your name S-h-e-l-d-o-n, because that’s how we spell it here.” Even at not-yet-five-years-old, I was outraged. I thought but did not say, “Who the #*^%& are you to tell ME how to spell MY name?”

I don’t think that at four years old I even knew a good cuss word to put in the string of symbols but I did know she was messed up. It was an assault on my identity, even though it was not an identity I’d chosen or even liked; in high school, I shortened my name to Shel. But in kindergarten, that was a long way in the future. 

It happened that her spelling was correct—but if it had not been, I’d have gone home and complained to my parents. A few years later, I would have politely told the teacher that her spelling wasn’t the right one, and that I did know how to spell my name. She did get the spelling right—but I tuned that teacher out to the point where it is the ONLY memory I had of her because she had established herself in my head as an ‘authority figure’ of zero importance to me. I went through the motions of kindergarten. I may have wasted a whole year of schooling because she discredited herself to me on my first day.

In today’s world, where the same root name can have a dozen wildly variant spellings, we should not only honor the names people use (whether given or chosen), but also their choice of pronouns. As the parent of a grown child who identifies as nonbinary, I can assure you that they see every intentional use of the pronouns they rejected as a similar assault on their personhood. Five years since the pronoun change, I still goof up once in a while–but they know it’s unintentional and that I’m doing my best to overcome 25 years of programming that associated them with pronouns that were biologically determined.

My kid even wrote a song about the experience of being misgendered repeatedly by a stranger–a waiter in a restaurant. Their website is Flight or Visibility.

And if you’re one of those people that pride yourself on fighting the “culture wars” to preserve heteronormative CIS-gendered lifestyles as the only choice, I’ve got a few questions for you:

  1. Why is the way some other people are wired threatening to you?
  2. Why do you need to stop other people from living the life that feels not just natural to them but their destiny?
  3. How would you feel if it was your personal lifestyle being attacked by people in the centers of power?
  4. Why do you choose actions that invalidate their personhood as mine was invalidated by that kindergarten teacher and my kid’s by that waiter? Does it make you feel superior to put other people down?
  5. If this were not natural, why have non-hetero and gender-queer people of all sorts existed throughout history, even in openly scornful or even repressive societies? Even into the late 1960s, there was basically no support for queer people of any sort, and in many parts of the world, it’s still an anathema that can lead to long prison terms. Yet people persist. They are willing to take on the burdens because they cannot deny who they are. Unlike the homophobes, they are not trying to “recruit” or “convert” others, just trying to live their lives. Why do you try to deny them?
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail