LGBT Anonymous Workplace Survey - consider NOT participating

Aard

Boston wrote: »

You're allowing your personal bias and desire to see insult in the innocent misguide your judgement.

This is the most important thing that has been said in the whole debacle.

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Christ - I thought I had said that my beef isn't

The first page demonstrates the failings of your accusations. I guess you ignored the first page as it made it difficult to interpret later questions in the way you so obviously desire. If they are so blind and ignorant, if they are so determined to force you to be something you're not, if they are so cruel and tormenting, than why are they so clearly reasonable in the opening page. Is it not infinitely more likly to be an oversight on the part of the author? The supervisor for this piece of work has published no works on gender identity and as such was unlikely to pick up errors of omission such as the one you've taken issue with.

deirdre_dub

Aard wrote: »

Boston wrote:

You're allowing your personal bias and desire to see insult in the innocent misguide your judgement.

This is the most important thing that has been said in the whole debacle.

I agree. It makes assumptions of me (kinda like the survey, when you think about it). It attacks my character. It reduces me to a biased person, a person with a desire to be insulted, a person incapable of accepting the innocent, and a person with poor judgement. It makes it easy to dismiss me. It denigrates me.

Aard, Boston, PLEASE answer the survey, and go away.

Thank you.

deirdre_dub

UPDATE

I've been so busy defending myself against the gross attacks on my character that I haven't been reading my email. I've received a very promising apology from the survey author. The author's response affirms and acknowledges my criticisms of the survey, which gives me hope that my fears may be unfounded. I'm going to respond to the author, and hope to post more here soon.

Boston

An assumption is an opinion based on either no data or incomplete data. You have provided me with lengthy arguments and I've based my opinion on my observations. That is called a judgement.


Now a little thought exercise:

You have made assumptions with regards to the authors intention based on a single piece of data (question 11) which you opening acknowledge is directly challenged by another piece of data (the front page). The survey provides the reader with a conflicting message to the reader, we've all acknowledge that. To draw not only conclusions, but vehement conclusions based on conflicting information smacks of bias. I suggest that the bias in question is one which is aligned towards a victim and a siege mentality.

Occams razor, the simplest solution is often the right solution. Or, put another way, never attribute to malish that which can be attributed to ignorance and/or laziness. You are not even willing to acknowledge the possibility that this survey isn't a personal attack on your self image.

Boston

deirdre_dub wrote: »

UPDATE

I've been so busy defending myself against the gross attacks on my character that I haven't been reading my email. I've received a very promising apology from the survey author. The author's response affirms and acknowledges my criticisms of the survey, which gives me hope that my fears may be unfounded. I'm going to respond to the author, and hope to post more here soon.

Shock horror. Breaking news, everyone not out to attack deirdre_dub. I hope you send her an apology for trying to sabotage her work, I doubt it somehow.

Sir Ophiuchus

Could we all take a few deep breaths here for a moment?

Everyone here is getting pretty angry, which they have the right to do, but it's very easy to misinterpret someone else's position in so doing.

Deirdre, you think the researchers are pathologising transgenderism and/or considering it a sexual orientation based on the wording of one of the questions.

Boston, Aard, you think that's not a correct interpretation. I happen to agree with you.

The trouble is, labelling a minority group (e.g. trans people) as "touchy" or "quick to take offence" or, worst of all, having a "desire to see insult" gets us into very awkward notions of what's called privilege.

Aard, Boston, I'm presuming neither of you are trans. For the record, neither am I. When speaking to a minority group about that minority group, particularly when you're not a member of it yourself, it's very easy to assert the inherent privilege you have in not being a member. As Deirdre pointed out, it's easy to consider the sidelining of gender identity issues as unimportant unless they're directly central to your life. It's easy to accuse people of being quick to take offence when the issue that offends them isn't central to your own life.

Important note: that's not what I'm accusing you of doing. It does, however, seem to be what Deirdre believes you're doing. And you need to be careful with that.

I don't agree with Deirdre, but I have advantages in approaching this study. I study at the TCD School of Psychology, I've taken classes with the study's supervisor, and I have a feel for the attitude to normativity in the School, and in the field. All those are privileges over and above not being trans. Coming to the study "cold", as Deirdre did, I can understand how the question wording and order could have rung alarm bells for her.

So, in summary: I don't agree with Deirdre. I think this is a genuinely well-intentioned study run by competent professional people. I think their wording and question order was awkward, but ultimately that the correct interpretation is that no sidelining or misinterpretation of trans identity or any other identity was either intended or effected. But I also realise Deirdre doesn't feel that way. I think she's wrong. But, and this is important, I acknowledge her right to hold the opinions she does. I don't sideline her, or patronise her, or take away her anger (I'm not speaking for her here either - that's just another assertion of privilege and an usurpation of someone's voice).

Does Deirdre have a personal investment in this? Of course, at least as much as I did when I challenged a similar study on its heteronormativity (and got mocked on this site for so doing, incidentally). Is she more inclined to see cisnormative attitudes than non-trans people? Of course she is, because they're important to her, and, as she said, raise red flags for her.

Is it appropriate to say she has a desire to take offence, or a personal bias?

No.

Edit due to new replies: I'm very glad they've replied, Deirdre. I'd expect no less from them, honestly. I hope they are able to address your concerns.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

An assumption is an opinion based on either no data or incomplete data. You have provided me with lengthy arguments and I've based my opinion on my observations. That is called a judgement.


Now a little thought exercise:

You have made assumptions with regards to the authors

I made a judgement about the survey.

Aard

@Ophiuchus:
I've made 3 posts in this thread, none of which comment on the survey per se. Call it off topic. My posts were to point out the OP's hypocrisy, and her tendancy to victimisation, narcissism, and obfuscation.

I guess that, reading between the lines, I was accusing her of being a poor ambassador to her cause, and that her suggestion of avoiding the survey was puerile, considering that she was just after publicising one that was to her liking.

deirdre_dub

Boston wrote: »

Shock horror. Breaking news, everyone not out to attack deirdre_dub.

Nope - there only seems to be one or two of you.

I hope you send her an apology for trying to sabotage her work

His work.

I do not believe I put a gun to anyone's head to get them to not answer the survey - all I've done is present arguments about why people should consider not answering it.

Sabotaging his work - I don't think so! I believe I've even ASKED a few people to answer the survey!!!

Sir Ophiuchus

Aard wrote: »

@Ophiuchus:
I've made 3 posts in this thread, none of which comment on the survey per se. Call it off topic. My posts were to point out the OP's hypocrisy, and her tendancy to victimisation, narcissism, and obfuscation.

I guess that, reading between the lines, I was accusing her of being a poor ambassador to her cause, and that her suggestion of avoiding the survey was puerile, considering that she was just after publicising one that was to her liking.

Yes. What I was saying is that you have to be particularly careful in doing things like that to a minority group member who's talking about minority group issues, when you're not a member of that group.

I never commented, either way, on what you said. I just wanted to highlight some tensions in how you said it.

Boston

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

The trouble is, labelling a minority group (e.g. trans people) as "touchy" or "quick to take offence" or, worst of all, having a "desire to see insult" gets us into very awkward notions of what's called privilege.

The Transgendered minority is small, but it isn't a minority of one. I'm pretty certain I directed my judgement at one person.

Why is it wrong to call something bias? A person may have many reasons for their bias nature, but that doesn't make them any less blind or any more right.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I made a judgement about the survey.

Sure you did.

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Yes. What I was saying is that you have to be particularly careful in doing things like that to a minority group member who's talking about minority group issues, when you're not a member of that group.

I never commented, either way, on what you said. I just wanted to highlight some tensions in how you said it.

Nonsense. You don't need to share empathy with all parties in a discussion to be able to spot inconsistencies and irrational lines of thought. As a psychology you of all people should know this to be true.

Aard

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

Yes. What I was saying is that you have to be particularly careful in doing things like that to a minority group member who's talking about minority group issues, when you're not a member of that group.

I never commented, either way, on what you said. I just wanted to highlight some tensions in how you said it.

I don't handle people with kid-gloves, especially in a forum where all posters will be a minority of some kind. Furthermore, I'm not sure I even could have sugar-coated what I had to say. I was succinct, at worst terse.


In relation to not being part of a minority group, I believe there are degrees of relation. Commenting like so about a transgendered person isn't the same as commenting about a parapleigic, a black person, an OAP. If there is a "T" in "LGBT", I believe it's sufficiently within my domain that I can comment freely. If not, then maybe the "T" should be dropped so as that we know what kind of comments are fair game.

Annasopra

Right

This thread is going to be locked for going wildly off topic

There was a certain amount of aggression aimed towards deirdre_dub for expressing an opinion. That is completely unacceptable on this forum.

In particular I feel that some posters did not show deirdre_dub respect and chose to attack her instead

I will be warning posters if behaviour like this continues in this forum