As an example, they are instituting a new dress code for her job and she's up in arms about it. Considering the position she holds, she probably does have at least a bit of a gripe about it. However, considering the condition of some of the clothes she's worn to work in the past - well it's people such as her that have helped contribute to the new dress code in my opinion. And truthfully, it's not like her job is the only job in the world with a dress code. Back in the day I worked as a manager for a national pizza chain and at one point they expected us to wear a *white* dress shirt and tie. Well that probably sounded great to some people at the corporate office, but for those of us in the field dealing with pizza sauce all day long - well it simply wasn't practical to wear white and eventually it changed. Don't get me wrong, I expressed my views (as did many other managers) when it came down, but then I moved on and considered it simply part of my job. I didn't continue to beat it into the ground the way M does with things.
But this post isn't meant to be a diatribe about M and her opinions, but rather about people and their opinions as a whole. What really inspired me to post about this topic has been the recent Facebook squabble over "real names". Now I had a different post mostly written arguing the points of their policy, but I deleted it and started over with this one. Mainly because writing an entire post on that wasn't very good reading and truthfully those who probably needed to read it never would have. I'm not going to sit here and argue pro/con for paragraph after paragraph as I had initially done, but rather I'll simply say this. Like the policy or not, it is a part of their Terms Of Service which anyone using their service agrees to. Just because I/You/We may not like it, well in my opinion it doesn't make it wrong or discriminatory as many say.
Personally I will say this, while it doesn't really affect me as things are today since my legal name has long since been changed and that's what I use, I *do* understand and empathize with *some* of the arguments about it. However, as is often the case I think many people are carrying their arguments too far and as such being detrimental to any effort to get the policy changed. Here are some of the arguments I've seen and my thoughts on them. This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list, and there are likely some valid and even very good ones that I may not touch on. That being said:
- It's being discriminatory. I simply can't get behind that argument. They aren't saying that some groups can do what they want and others can't in this case. I personally think that this argument is not only not valid in this case, but also that using it in this case is very detrimental as a whole - it just reeks of the "boy who cried wolf" to me and cheapens a term that shouldn't be cheapened.
- It's a safety issue. Now, I do understand where this is coming from and I do believe there is some merit to that. However, if someone believes they are at risk by having their real name in use on Facebook then why are they on Facebook to begin with? As a trans-woman I do put thought into the places I go and anywhere I don't feel that I would be safe, well I simply do not go there. If I felt that having my real name on Facebook made things unsafe for me, well then I wouldn't have an account there.
- How will I keep in contact with family/friends/etc. I also see some merit here; however, and maybe I'm showing my age a bit much, but I was around long before Facebook, and believe it or not I was able to keep in touch with those I cared about before Facebook. Email, phone calls, text messages, actual "snail mail", instant messenger, Skype, Google+, and many, many other alternatives exist.
- It's Facebook being greedy. This argument seems to be centered around the fact that "fan pages" (or whatever they are called) don't have a real name requirement, but they can "cost" something. I'll be honest I'm not completely versed in the specifics here and perhaps I should be, but that aside - Facebook is a corporation and corporations are generally meant to make money. Some of the people in the news about this current controversy are making an issue about being able to connect with their "fans". Well at that point aren't we really talking about their business interests? And if so, then why should they expect another business (Facebook in this case) to help subsidize their business? I'm sorry, I just don't get that rationale. If I were to open Madison's Burger Shack, should I expect McDonald's or Wendy's to help my business out?
As I said there are lots of other arguments to be made both pro and con here, and despite my comments above I'm not here trying to defend Facebook for the policy. What I am defending is their right to set that policy and expect those that chose to use their service to abide by it. If I/You/We don't like it, then by all means I/We/You should do what we can to convince them to change their policy. However, if they don't then I also feel that I/We/You should either be willing to abide by it or move on to something else.
And by no means is this simply an issue with Facebook. As an example I *personally* don't believe that DIY hormones are the right thing to do. Truthfully I'm not even a real big fan of informed consent. I myself believe that following the WPATH guidelines and seeking therapy first is the right thing to do. However, I also understand that there are reasons why people may want to go the informed consent route, or even the DIY route. Just because I don't like those options doesn't make them wrong for others.
I could go on and on both about the Facebook issue or any other thing that I (or anyone else) believe, but the whole point of this was just as the title says, just because something runs contrary to what we believe is right doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Now could it be wrong? Yes, of course it could. However, I really feel that as wonderful as emotions are, that all too often issues get clouded by those same emotions and opinions may get formed based more on emotions than facts. I really think that the world as a whole would be a lot better off if before I/You/We decide that something we don't believe in is wrong, if I/You/We stepped back for a moment and tried to see all sides of the issue objectively and fairly - that doesn't mean we have to ignore our emotions, but shouldn't they simply be one factor of many and not the single overriding factor? I/You/We may or may not change our opinions by doing so, but at a minimum we might have a better understanding of things and perhaps it may change our outlook.
These are simply *MY* thoughts and opinions on things, nothing more, nothing less. I am sorry for the length of this, and I'm sure there will be those of you who have read this and vehemently disagree with me and that's fine - I'll be more than happy to discuss the issue(s) publicly or privately with anyone who desires to do so.
- M
No comments:
Post a Comment