Going beyond transition

Tag Archives: media

Oh, them? Just my stalkers..

Posted on by Posted in Life, Twitters .

I admit it. I’m a fan of NCIS. I’ve always like the show and get a kick out of the characters, particularly Abby (played by Pauley Perrette). She has an interesting background, including a master’s degree in Criminology (once, a direction I wanted to do) and truly seems to enjoy her career as an actress. I respect people who do act, whether on the big screen, little screen or stage. It takes a lot to stand in front of strangers, pretending to be something that you may or may not be. Sometimes that pretending can be contrary to who you are (Carroll O’Connor, more widely recognized as Archie Bunker, was far more liberal than even the “Meathead” was). But the one thing to remember is that every actor or actress is a person, a real live human being. Society has recently been overwhelming generations with more entertainment than ever before and the line between entertainment and life is blurring far too rapidly. As a geek, I’ve always found that sometimes the latest craze can be too much.

The Internet and computers were, to me, just tools for communication and creating community. I’ve never been big on the advertising bit but do understand that capitalism is what is driving education in the world today (rather than education for the sake of learning and expanding one’s mind). I suspect, however, it’s that drive to remove the human element from entertainment, that realization that this is a person too and not just the character they portray. I remember, as a kid, hearing stories of people going after Larry Hagman (well known as the badman J.R. in Dallas), claiming how mean and cruel he was. I suspect it is a testimony to how good of an actor he is but it is kind of frightening how society cannot make that break between what is real and what is show. This kind of over-attachment is just below the line of stalker.

And therein lies the issue. The Internet has made it easier for someone to “stalk” others. A friend of mine recently commented, when I mentioned I’d be making my twitter feed private, as to whether she’d be able to continue to “stalk me online” as a result. This is a good friend and she meant it entirely in a fun manner. Unfortunately, there are many out there who do stalk others and an openly feed like twitter can further continue that blurring of reality versus character. A twitter feed (basically, it’s the 140 character blips that people send out about life and such) can often seem one-sided. When we read a twitter sent to us, we forget that we can often be one of many who receive it. And if it’s public, everyone receives it. From a marketing and/or promoting perspective, this is a huge thing. It’s not surprising that the likes of CNN and others have been capitalizing on it. Heck, the whole thing between CNN and Ashton Kutcher was amusing but I failed to see the point. It doesn’t matter how many people follow you if they aren’t really listening to what you are saying.

That aside, however, the bigger challenge is actually know who is really saying it. As I write this blog, many who read it have never met me in person and only know me based on the pictures I post or the YouTube videos that end up here now and again. If I never did the YouTube vids (I’m due for another one soon, I think), I could have been anyone posting those things. Heck, I still could be. The Internet is fascinating in how it does tear down our identities and labels but it’s also scary. There is no way to verify who a person is. In computer security we often try to do multiple forms of authentication (that is, verifying that the person using a resource is who they say they are). Generally, it comes in one of 3 forms: what you know (username/password), what you have (physical ID like passport, card, etc.) or what you are (biometrics like retina scans, iris scans, fingerprints, facial recognition). Using multiples of these or all 3 (ideally) makes identification and verification more effective.

The big I internet will never be able to, at this point and in the near future, be able to provide true verification that the person talking is, in fact, that person. And, to make it worse, we have no way to prevent those that are stalking (in the bad sense) stop their behaviour. There is no police online, there are very limited stalking laws in general and most people scoff at it, claiming it’s the victim’s imagination. One of the things I had challenged in twitter was the ability of someone to reply who wasn’t being followed. Most people were against this (to the degree that some vehemently argued with me, saying that it was a form of censorship and a violation of their 1st Amendment rights). Well, it’s not a violation. That law applies to the government violating your right to speak out, not a private firm. It’s their servers and if they feel there is a need, then they have the right to do so. Certainly object to them if it displeases you. When I mentioned how this might be because of stalkers and spammers, they scoffed saying that those people can be easily blocked. This comment highlights someone who has never experienced (and I hope they never do) what it’s like. There is a fear to knowing that someone who has never been or formerly was a part of your life follows you this excessively. It’s downright scary.

Very few organizations seem to address this properly or fully. They do not consider that they may be helping to feed this and encourage this by not adding in some verifications about who a person is and are they who they claim to be. Because of this lack of verification, no court order can be put in place to prevent someone from following another or pretending to be that other. Most “stalkers” are not dangerous but now and again, there is one. And it only takes one. So how does this all tie in with Pauley Perrette? Well, over the weekend I watched her YouTube video (see below) about Twitter and the fact that she cannot have an internet presence. While not a violation of her 1st Amendment it is a violation of her right to enjoy life, liberty and happiness to allow someone to so control you that you cannot be creative, if you wanted to, on a global basis. It is another form of denying someone their right to their own identity, whatever that may be.

Revisiting Bowling for Columbine

Posted on by Posted in Politics, Twitters .

Today, on IFC, they were showing Bowling for Columbine. This Michael Moore documentary was an interesting look at the gun culture of the US. But it reminded me more of the differences between Canada and the US in general. When I first watched it a few years ago, it left me with an impression of a society that has very strict divisions of society as well as a “culture of fear”. And now, after living in the US for the past year, I find that it’s not that far off.

One of the things I noticed the most was how the media was done. Part of my work background is that of a computer and security expert/writer. One of the things that most are aware of is the fact that FUDing (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) does more harm than good. When people are in a constant state of fear and have uncertainty about that induces a huge amount of distrust in the work place and in general life. The reality is that our society needs some sense of trust somewhere.

We always hear questions about whether we trust the government but the question I’d be asking is: how much do you trust the person sitting next to you? Thanks to the mass media (i.e., news, movies, tv shows, talk shows, etc.) we have been taught to fear each other. I find this odd since most Americans I’ve met are really friendly and willing to help. There is an inner desire within each of us that is prevelant, I believe, to help others in need. It’s unfortunate that society has turn that ability to help into something bad or perceived as bad.

We’ve allowed others to decide for us what is “right” and what is “wrong” rather than going through the experience of getting to know one another and creating connections. In Canada, this exists as well but to a limited degree. It’s interesting that most of our “fears” actually were derived from and about the US rather than about other Canadians. I suspect it’s part of why there is such a huge push to have “Canadian only” or “mostly Canadian” content on TV, movies and elsewhere plus a large import from other nations (most notably, the BBC and France). But it’s more than that. There is something in Canadian culture that suggests we trust our neighbours more.

And although we trust our neighbours more, we want to learn even less about them compared to Americans. Many people stereotype Americans as nosy and loud. I suppose you could look at it that way but from my experience it’s more that Americans have a geniune curiosity about those around them, wanting to learn and offering an opinion about what they learn. There is a built in desire there to be part of something more than just their own lives. If we could remove the built up fear about the unknown, you probably wouldn’t see as much poverty, full equal rights for all and tolerance towards all who are different from ourselves.

And although Michael Moore’s piece was somewhat shocking (I can’t help but shake my head at the thought of a bank giving out a gun when you open an account and having 500+ guns in the vault — that, to me, is an invite to rob), in the time I’ve been year I’ve yet to see one gun. I totally respect people’s rights to have them as long as they are smart about them (proper training, storage and usage).

Basically, long winded way of me saying I like my new host country and consider it a second home for me.

LGBTQ news: The list is supposed to be getting smaller, not bigger..

Posted on by Posted in hate crimes, LGBTQ, transgender .

It’s interesting to see how news media deals with stuff like this. In both cases they identify the victim, Teish Cannon, as being “openly gay” and being a man. But only one identifies that she was living as a woman. I’m not sure what her gender identity was but a part of me feels that she is being disrespected by the media for who she was.

Source: Syracuse.com

Dwight R. DeLee shot and killed Moses “Teish” Cannon with a .22-caliber rifle Friday night because he didn’t like that Cannon was openly gay, Syracuse police said.

Cannon, 22, and his brother, Mark Cannon, 18, both of 404 Arthur St., were shot as they sat in a car parked in front of 411 Seymour St., where they had been invited to a party. The bullet grazed the left arm of Mark Cannon, who was in the driver’s seat, and hit Moses Cannon in the chest, police said.

And the second story which identifies, at the least, that she lived as a woman.

Source: Newsradio 570 WSYR Syracuse

The Syracuse man charged with second degree murder faces a judge this morning.

Family and friends of Moses Cannon are still shocked over his sudden death.

“I’m bitter, I’m hurt,” said Roxanne Green, Moses’ mother.

Cannon, who lived as a woman, was shot and killed Friday night. Police say the suspect, 20 year-old Dwight DeLee, didn’t like his sexual preference.

The Power of Words

Posted on by Posted in LGBTQ, transgender, transition .

I was recently pondering all the bru-ha-ha over the idea of same-sex marriage. It is interesting to see how states will give **EXACTLY** the same rights and privileges as straight/het married individuals but because it’s called civil unions, it’s viewed as not enough. I dunno. Either way I look at it, it is a form of a social contract and commitment between two or more people (IMO — it’s so nice that it’s limited to just two people, as if we’re only capable of loving just two but that’s a whole other post on-to-itself, I think). And really, you know, words are powerful things and something we take that for granted. We use words to describe who we are and where we’re going in life. And sometimes those words seem apt to us but to others they are adequate or wrong. Take for example, transgender. For most definitions it is about the fact the person views themselves as different from birth gender.

refers to any gender variant person. It is a broad, relatively recent term referring to people whose gender identity or expression falls outside of stereotypical gender norms.

Source: Google Definition Search

When I compare this to the various definitions of transsexual we seem some overlap:

– a person who has undergone a sex change operation
– transsexual(a): overwhelmingly desirous of being, or completely identifying with, the opposite sex
– a person whose sexual identification is entirely with the opposite sex

Source: Google Definition Search

Now, yes, transsexual does fall under the domain of transgender. What’s interesting is that society seems to be ok with the term transgender but not so much the term transsexual. It’s not just the “trans community” (at least those that I am familar with so this isn’t a broad brush thing) that seems to view it as a more acceptable term. When you read various articles and newspieces, a transsexual is often associated with a trans sex worker who has been murdered while transgendered refers to others that are seen in a good light. The use of transgender in the news media is well over double that of transsexual. It’s a curious thing why.

As I think of the historical evolution of the word and the world of transsexuals/transgender individuals, it makes me wonder if there is a negative stigmata associated with that of transsexual. That is, a transsexual is a bad thing (e.g., pedophile or other “sexual deviant”) whereas transgender is a good thing and is viewed in a positive light. Mass media has largely used the term transsexual to define individuals that were corrupt, scheming and evil in many ways. That’s not to say that there aren’t trans individuals who aren’t that but there are many — more than likely the majority — who are nice, average people just living life. So why is it we only see transsexual in the terms of a negative?

On the flip side, transgender has been taking a lot more of a positive look on things and seems to be more accepted as a path for individuals to pursue in their quest to match up their gender with their view of their gender. When the terms are looked in a better light then perhaps society may look at the individuals who use those terms to describe themselves in a better light. The term tranny, a term I don’t particularly like because of it’s historically insulting and demeaning use, continues — in mainstream use — to have a negative connotation to it although it does depend on the context and who uses it. For some it is a form of ownership to our own history and that is true in many ways. For some “trannies”, there is a sense of pride to take ownership of it and self-identify with it.

So that leads me to a self-question: do we acqueise to what society wants in hopes that it may lessen discrimination or do we use the words we want to self-describe ourselves as we see fit? I’d rather be hated because I used words that better described me than loved for words that made me look fluffy (although, I really am fluffy, to borrow Gabriel Iglesias term)

Tell me something I didn’t know..

Posted on by Posted in LGBTQ, Life .

Ok. I’ll admit it. I’ve never been fond of American Idol and the teeny-bopper singers that are produced from it. But the recent bru-ha-ha around Clay Aiken and him being gay just made me.. well.. 😐 I mean, come on. Every now and again there are some in the “fambly” that are just so flamin’, you can smell it miles away. And here was one. What killed me even more was the following comment made by one fan, so upset over it:

“This is really shocking news as I had no idea he was gay,” read a comment posted by “Sheridansq.” “And now I have to deal with this. I am not sure what to say to people who know I was a fan. … I didn’t go to work today and am not answering the telephone.”

Are you shitting me? Even at the height of my Thriller days, I never went to this extreme. I mean, I might like the music but what the man/woman does with their lives is their lives. And bully for them for enjoying life outside of being under the public eye. But seriously.

So what if he’s gay? This should be such a non-issue it’s not funny. Ok. There is the fact that he’ll be under constant scrutiny by the media, fans and haters alike. Being a gay father isn’t the easiest thing in anyone’s world. Heck, being a parent period is tough in this day and age. Shouldn’t his singing/dancing/song writing be more of prominence when it comes to his job than his “gayness”? And if it’s a question of parenting, seriously, he’s off on the right foot by being overly honest.

But it does make me wonder how much of this is just a ploy for attention when a career is lagging. It was stating the bleeding obvious but it does generate lots of excitement when the world has nothing better to do. I mean, financial crisis’ come and go, eh?