Cat mail

This is paris typing an email. He is so clever. Shame he cant work out that the hoover is not a cat eating monster.

I am woman.

You know, just because people mistake me for a man, doesn't mean I ought to be one. I am just me.

As the constant debate about gender and sexuality within LGBT circles rages on, where people discuss "gender fluidity", more and more butch lesbians transition and more women refer to themselves as "boi", some of us find ourselves under pressure to redefine themselves.

There was a time when women like me - who some might call "butch dykes", others might refer to as "boyish" - found it acceptable to refer to themselves as women. That we did not wear the traditional uniform of women (skirts, dresses, blouses and bras) and did not carry ourselves with the traditional (Hollywood informed) feminine demeanour was not an issue. We were still women, albeit women that did not conform to the stereotypical gender roles assigned to us.

I grew up in the 80s and came out in the 90s and by the time I was at university gender ambiguity was very much the height of fashion. Various fashion designers and models exploited this look - taking it out of the clubs and into the mainstream and I was very happy to be young and keen in a world where androgyny was accepted. When I went out on a Friday night with my mates few outside the LGBT world would be able to discern who among us was male and who was female.

And while our ostentatious gender identities may have been blurred to those looking in, most of us were quite sure that a man who wears high heels and make up is still a man and a woman puts on a shirt and tie is still a woman. Sure there were times I found myself being checked out by gay guys but that didn't make me think I should become one or that I was secretly male. Neither did it make me think that I should start wearing make up and skirts so gay men wouldn't hit on me or straight women wouldn't try throwing me out of the ladies toilets.

Somewhere along the line things changed and A LOT of women who were like me started transitioning and/or calling themselves something else. They went from being butch lesbians, seemingly proud of identifying as women, (albeit women who don't fit into mainstream gender stereotypes), to identifying as men. Their femininity could no longer be expressed in the way it had been previously, it had to be redefined as masculinity. While I was quite happy for that to go on - people can do what they want, right? - I find that the more women there are that do this, the less legitimacy I seem to have in saying "I'm a woman, just not your type of woman".

I am not a boy, boi, guy or man. I am a woman and I am very proud and happy about that. I enjoy being a woman. I like having breasts and occasionally I even enjoy having a fucking period. I like the fact that I can get pregnant and give birth, I like that I was once a girl. I like that I have a vagina and not a penis. I like that one day I'll go through the menopause. I even like that now that I am in my 30s I seem to have fucking acne again. I may not accept my place in society as a woman, but I do like how it has shaped my life. I am woman.

But I also like wearing the clothes I do and I feel comfortable in who I am, even if that means that occasionally people mistake me for being a man. I am not going to start redefining myself as "gender queer" or start transitioning so I fit in with other people's definitions of what is male and female. I wouldn't dress differently so I can accommodate the thoughts and feelings as mainstream society, so why start calling myself something new? Just as I refused to accept being ushered out of the ladies toilets because I don't fit mainstream definitions of femininity, I refuse to accept being labelled "gender queer" by those who think I look like a man.

It seems to me that many of those who are embracing these trans roles and definitions, particularly lesbians, do so thinking that they are challenging and redefining traditional gender stereotypes. I would argue that the opposite is true - rather than redefining gender stereotypes they are perpetuating them. Rather than building on the work of all those feminists and lesbians of the 60s, 70s and 80s they are dismantling all their progress. Not only do they return us to the binary that they themselves are trying to escape, they devalue womanhood and femininity in all its forms.

Interestingly, if I find myself in the position of having to chose between defining myself as "gender queer" or "trans" or changing the way I dress and act so that I can be accepted in a more traditional female role, I would choose that latter. Perhaps that shows an inherent transphobia on my part or perhaps it illustrates just how much identifying as a woman really means to me.

This is what we should be afraid of

I have grown increasingly worried about the resurgence of fascism and extreme right wing doctrine since the start of this Deprecession (It's a new, unprouncable word that means Deep recession or Depression). There is nothing like economic hardship to sharpen the minds of the right wing elite while dulling the sensibilities of the media. What I find really strange about this report of the war between fascists and anti-fascists in Russia, is the idea that Russians, (Russians?), are putting up with Nazi symbolism and propaganda. Twenty odd million Soviets died in that war.

"Low hanging fruit" - Why intervention in developing countries is always easier.

So the following is an extract from a New York Times article someone showed me yesterday. The article presents data from a review paper in Nature Geoscience that cites Black Carbon (BC), which is produced from sources like cookstoves in developing countries:

While carbon dioxide may be the No. 1 contributor to rising global temperatures, scientists say, black carbon has emerged as an important No. 2, with recent studies estimating that it is responsible for 18 percent of the planet’s warming, compared with 40 percent for carbon dioxide. Decreasing black carbon emissions would be a relatively cheap way to significantly rein in global warming — especially in the short term, climate experts say. Replacing primitive cooking stoves with modern versions that emit far less soot could provide a much-needed stopgap, while nations struggle with the more difficult task of enacting programs and developing technologies to curb carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.

In fact, reducing black carbon is one of a number of relatively quick and simple climate fixes using existing technologies — often called “low hanging fruit” — that scientists say should be plucked immediately to avert the worst projected consequences of global warming.

Let's not bother with the fact that the article missed out the most important line in the original paper:

It is important to emphasize that BC reduction can only help delay and not prevent unprecedented climate changes due to CO2 emissions.

Instead, I wanna focus on what the scientists and the reporters claim to be the solution to significantly reducing BC. They want to go into hundreds of thousands of villages across Asia (and possibly Africa and Latin America) and replace soot producing cookstoves with solar powered or gas ones. The stoves cost about $20, which is no doubt prohibitively expensive for both individual villagers and governments of the countries in which they live. Therefore I envisage a Euro-American funded programme to tackle this one. In order to persuade villagers to not only accept and use the new stove, but resist having two stoves, the programme will have to include various training and education elements. But before that we'd probably need feasibility and acceptability studies and once we're through with the pilots and started the community preparedness programme and constructed a timetable for delivery, we'd embark on the statutory monitoring and evaluation to ensure that things are being delivered effectively. Oh and let's not forget that we might also need an intervention programme to persuade governments to legislate against the old cookstoves, just in case voluntary behaviour change is not as forthcoming as the pilots first suggested. The new stoves may also have significant health benefits, so perhaps stepwise, clustered, randomised controlled trials would be in order and... you perhaps see what I am driving at.

A major programme to introduce and replace cookstoves in these countries is comparable to developing and delivering any major intervention, such as polio vaccinations, malaria net distribution or indeed male circumcision. However, for some reason changing the lifestyle of perhaps over a billion people represents "low hanging fruit" in comparison attempting to get far fewer individuals and corporations in the West to reduce their carbon dioxide output. (And remember, BC reduction will only delay not prevent runaway climate change. Also remember, that cookstoves in developing countries do not represent the total BC production).

Fact is, it's not just about the "simple" technology. Intervention (and the accompanying research) is always easier in developing countries because the rights of the target individuals are never in question. It's cheaper because these people's lives are worth much less than ours - the constuction, delivery, installation and training for use of these stoves will cost peanuts because the labour is cheap. A similar programme to perhaps fit biomass boilers in all homes in the UK, or perhaps legislate against non-energy efficient lightbulbs would be unthinkable, indeed refusing to open a new coal powered plant in the UK is unthinkable!

"Low hanging fruit" is just a euphemism for "low ethical standards". It means "We can mess about with these people and there will be fewer financial and political ramifications and no one will ever know if things go wrong". It's the reason why it will always be easier to go into Africa, Asia and Latin America to solve problems that affect us all.