Some Thoughts On The Interveiw

I guess I’m not super outraged about The Interview being pulled from theaters because things that speak to my groups get canned all the time for less reason.

In all this rush to condemn Sony, I would like people to remember that Sony only canned the release after the theater groups refused to show the movie. Yes, it’s concerning that theater groups bowed to the threats, but since the Batman shooting happened so comparatively recently, it’s hard to fault them for taking the safety of their theaters seriously. I wish they’d found a better way to do that, I think the theaters should have asked for police protection rather than cave. I think that the police departments of the US should have provided that protection free of charge in the spirit of our First Amendment.

With that being said, the chest-thumping outrage that some people are displaying is something I cannot relate to at all. I guess you could say that my opposition to these decisions is intellectual. Principled. But devoid of any passion or sentiment.

And here’s why: the voices of my trans sisters are constantly being muted, distorted, crimped, appropriated, and shunted to the side, and when we complain about this we are told we are too sensitive. Or that we have to make allowances, given how “new” and “unusual” we are. We’re told that as a minority, we don’t have the right to expect high quality representation, that our stories are niche, a bonus, a coupon for an ally cookie. And sometimes there are threats, too. Of rape and death and all the worst things. Our art–and our lives–are constantly under siege. We are not heard, not seen, and the more we fight back against that, the worse the counterattacks are. What these guys are going through, as horrible as it is, is nothing compared to what I’ve seen people close to me endure just in the past few weeks and months.

That’s where I come from. That’s where I live. And now some rich, straight, white, cisgender dudes are acting like civilization is about to come crashing down because they were denied access to a platform. And, I’m sorry, I simply cannot muster any outrage about that.

Because remember, Sony hasn’t said they’ll never release the movie. It could show up on Netflix tomorrow for all we know. What happened here was that the owners of a private platform decided they didn’t want to deal with the security threat that this movie allegedly posed, so they denied the use of their platform. And, again, I have principled, intellectual objections to that. I wish they’d taken a stand, but they chose not to, and now Seth Rogan will have to comfort himself by buying some whiskey with part his $8.4 million paycheck. I’m not sure how our Republic can recover from such a blow.

And that private platform he was denied? Me and my trans sisters are almost never allowed up on to it. When we are, we’re depicted as rapists, serial killers, pathetic imposters, or garish counterfeits of femininity. If we’re really, really lucky, we get shitty retrograde bullshit like TransAmerica that doesn’t make us out to be unhinged psychopaths but does perpetuate a raft of hurtful, inaccurate stereotypes about us. But folks like Seth Rogan get to star in movies all the time. And he still can. He can continue to have a career in movies of the sort that only members of his demographic are privileged to have.

And like I said, I object to what’s happened to his movie. I object to any display of art being curtailed by thuggish threats. But don’t ask me to get angry about a multimillionaire straight, white, cisgender dudebro dealing with what it’s like for the rest of us for once in his life.

Waiting Periods for Hormone Replacement Therapy

One of the things that trans people have to put up with when we try to transition is cis doctors refusing to prescribe hormones for us until we’ve jumped through their stupid fucking hoops. I basically had to lie to the shrink I was seeing to get mine in a timely manner. This was in 2011, when I was homeless and constantly on the edge of suicide. I told my doctors this. They knew this. Still, they delayed, out of some allegiance to a medical standard written by cis people from a cis-centrist perspective. I remember vividly that some of my nastier brushes with ideation would happen after various frustrating delays of the process of being allowed to start taking hormones. They played with my life, and they thought they were helping me.

Waiting periods for hormones are an inhuman abomination. They have no moral justification whatsoever. It is not, however, an enormous surprise that they remain hugely popular among the various groups that get to set policy for the prescription of hormone replacement therapy. Cis people would rather torture a trans woman for three months or an entire year or however long they decide is sufficient for them to allow us some self determination, they’d rather keep our lives and sanity right up against the precipice, they’d rather we suffer in miserable agony knowing every day the damage gets worse, than risk allowing even a single cis man to “make a mistake.” Because trans lives don’t matter, and cis comfort does.

But isn’t there room for reasonable people to disagree–

NO. There is no room for reasonable people to disagree about this. What we have room for is us forgiving you for supporting and promoting a system that does incalculable damage to us every fucking day. And in most times, in most ways, we do forgive you, without grudge or hesitation. But don’t ever confuse that forgiveness with us agreeing to disagree.

The care and treatment of transgender people should be done in accordance with medical ethics guides written by transgender doctors and bioethicists. That’s the only way I see the system ever really working for us. Of course, I hardly expect this to ever be the case, what with the “conflict of interest” and all. More plausible in the short to medium term, we need to make the informed consent model the default model, and the one that the laws defer to. Until then, more of us will suffer needlessly, all for the sake of a hypothetical cis man who got confused.

“GamerGate didn’t do that.”

Okay, there’s a meme floating around that I want to take a pot shot at here if you’ll bear with me for a moment. It goes something like this: “How can you say that GamerGate even enters into the threats against Anita/Zoe/Brianna/etc? Where’s the proof? Where’s the evidence? Did they support this? Did they applaud this?”

Right. So that’s the meme. You’ve seen it around, right?

Here’s my answer:

Well, there’s been the months long pattern of escalating harassment that has proven links to a lot of GG incubators like 4chan/8chan, certain closed IRC channels, etc. There’s the fact that multiple specific threats have been made against more than one woman, all of whom have been sucked up into this bullshit tornado at one point or another, and the threats against their lives just happen to coincide with new waves of outrage among GamerGaters. There’s the fact that at least one of the specific threats mentioned GamerGate in its text, and probably more but I can’t be arsed to run down an exhaustive list just because you whine at me. There’s the fact that Adam Baldwin, the guy who coined the term GamerGate and is pretty much its most high profile booster, has a history of trying to dismiss threats as fake threat, or saying that Anita was somehow milking it or anyhow it wasn’t actually a big deal or if it was a big deal it had nothing to do with GG and she was still vile slime who should just shut up.

I mean, other than that, no, there’s not much to go on.

Look, this shit doesn’t happen among car enthusiasts or music fans. Movie buffs and sports geeks don’t do this kind of thing, at least not in any world I’m familiar with. But this *does* happen in gamer communities, and it happens frequently. It’s been happening for years. It keeps happening no matter how many times the respectable moderates post about how shocked and horrified (did we mention horrified?) they are that someone would make death threats against those women they’d been calling skanky hagcunts for months on end. GamerGate itself isn’t new or unique or really even that different than anything that’s come before it; it’s only a crystallization of a lot of really horrible trends and patterns that have been around for years. So if you really, really want to, you can draw neat lines and pretend that GG has nothing to do with (certain) threats. That’s not a real credible position, and you’re going to have to make some untenable arguments, but you can try. You can clap your hands make believe.

But that doesn’t change the fact that gaming, as a subculture, is showing itself embarrassingly childish, nasty, and cruel, or that these threats grow out of that environment. GamerGate embodies that. It was founded to shame a woman for having sex, and any claim to the contrary is chaff and propaganda. These threats are the logical, perhaps even deliberate, outcome of those first early planning meetings held in an IRC Channel. To claim otherwise is to, at best, be a useful idiot for some of the most hateful, bigoted people on the Internet.

And that’s a shitty place to be in life.

Cascade Writers Workshop Writeup

So I just got back from the 2014 Cascade Writers conference, held this year in beautiful Kent, Washington. Wonderful, glorious Kent, where they have a Denny’s and a Mitzel’s.

But aside from the wonderful (not really) location, the conference itself was quite lovely. I met some new people and cemented some friendships from last year. I went to pitch practice and accidentally brought down the house with a better than expected pitch that later nabbed me a pair of manuscript requests when I got to try it on actual agents. My writing plans, so fuzzy and unsure before I departed have now solidified into solid game plans for the rest of the year and beyond. I’m going to finish the two sequels I’m currently working on, and then start on a new, unrelated project that’s an expansion of the short piece I submitted for workshop this year.

Also, I have become the Twitter goddess for the conference, and am now in control of fully half of the Cascade Writers convention’s social media presence. My reign of terror shall know nothing but triumph, I am sure. Next year we’re going to have the convention at a much better location, and will hopefully have both larger attendance and a functioning hashtag. (This year’s tag got crushed by a wielder’s conference that was about a billion time’s our size and using the same tag.) By that time, I should have the new project’s first draft finished, so we shall see what–if anything–I submit from it next time. If I still haven’t picked up an agent by then, I may pitch for the new project as well.

All in all, a successful trip.

Things That Child Psychologists Have Said About Me

“On the subtest of Comprehension, [April] asked whether [s]he should answer the questions the way in which [s]he wanted to answer them, or if [s]he should respond according to [her] perception of how the test wanted the questions answered. The examiner replied by stating [s]he could answer the questions in the manner in which [s]he chose. [April] appeared to answer the questions the way [s]he wished and scored far below average. Following a re-administration of this subtest, [April] performed in the above average range when asked to respond as [s]he perceived the test wanted [her] to respond. [April] stated that [her] answers were more creative and less boring than the typical responses.”

Taken from the results of some academic testing done on me in the eighth grade.

List Post

21 Things That Only People Who Don’t Believe In Reductive, Overly Deterministic Lists Will Understand.

43 Reasons To Abandon Vacuous, Thought-Free Ad-Bait Content In Favor Of A New Intellectualism.

17 Ways To Realize That The Internet Is Wasting Your Life, One Headline At A Time.

25 Times You Could Have Made A Better Choice, But Elected To Waste Hours Dicking Around on Facebook And Buzzfeed Instead.

22 Ways To Realize That We Live In A Golden Age Of Information Access And We’re Pissing It Away With List Posts.

31 Reasons Why We’re So Scared Of Thinking That We Bury Ourselves In Comforting Noise (Hint: They’re Both Sinister And Banal).

16 Epiphanies You Can Have RIGHT NOW That Will Make You Smarter And Happier.

50 Reasons Why There Are Massive Organizations Dedicated To Making Sure That You Don’t.

10 Ways You Can Make A Better Choice.

Endless Ways To Be Happier.

Mission Statement

EDIT: I wrote this while I was pretty pissed off about something. You may consider it hyperbole. 

From time to time, I’ve been asked what would “satisfy” me as a feminist concerned with media representation. I’ve thought about it for a long time.

So how about this: I want total, unfettered cultural domination by women at the expense of men in all forms of media. I want the lives and stories of women to be the preeminent concern of all popular culture in all venues, with only lip service paid to the existence and agency of men. I want this to continue in the face of mountains of incisive, cogent analysis why this is unfair. I want this state of affairs to continue for at least three generations.

And that, maybe, will go an appreciable distance towards healing the cultural and psychic damage patriarchy has done to women over the centuries. Maybe.

Until I get this, I guess I’ll just have to keep agitating and never be satisfied. If this is unreasonable, understand that those who fight for the status quo want the same damn thing, but worse and in the other direction. You don’t win at things like this by being reasonable.

Twelve-Mile Limit

Note: this is my entry for this week’s flash fiction challenge put up by Chuck Wendig.

“We’re not getting too close, are we?”

She smirks. “Scared, Dave?”

“Yes. Yes I’m fucking scared.” You’d have to be an idiot not to be scared. They’ve just come over a hill and caught sight of the thing’s distant glow for the first time. Blue, watery light spilling up into the night sky. There, just over the horizon, something lurks in the ruins of Seattle.

“Don’t worry,” says Laura. “I’ve done this a hundred times. Treat the Exclusion Zone with respect, but don’t let fear control you. They say you need to stay fifteen miles away, but it’s really more like tweleve. As long as we don’t for a swim in the sound we should be fine.”

“Right. Right,” says Dave. This is his first run. The barbed wire and machine gun nests were easier to get through than he’d expected. Laura knows all the blind spots to skirt through, all the right officers to bribe.

Zone running is a cottage industry now. Uncle Sam says “keep out” but market forces say “come on in” and so there’s almost always a few people hunting and pecking through the ruins. There’s a huge market for salvaging from the Exclusion Zone. People will pay to get old family photos back, or a rifle in good working order recovered from one of the places where National Guard units made their final stands. And of course, there are the artifacts. The strange bits of dross fell off the thing as careened through the sky on its way down. Find a nice piece of that, and you can retire.

Dave and Laura skitter down the side of a collapse building, wary of broken glass and rusty metal. Tonight’s run is a quick one, just in and out with nothing more than a little food, a little water, an emergency beacon, and of course their rifles.

People have gone unarmed into the EZ before, but that was mostly in the desperate early days. Before everyone learned better.

“Where are we?” asks Dave as they reach street level. The road here is relatively clear, and so they walk down its center, weaving between collapsed buildings and abandoned cars. Weeds punch up through the asphalt, and crows watch them from a distance.

“We’re about to cross 180th,” says Laura. She’s got her hair cut close, almost a buzz cut. There’s a fun scar that traces the bottom of her jaw, and her eyes are on the horizon. “Shouldn’t be too much further.”

Dave is here to get some files. When the doom fell on Seattle, the survivors were evacuated. Among them, a very large, very wealthy software development firm. You have probably heard of them. There had been a project underway, millions of dollars already committed. It was so top secret that the only backups were kept in another building on the same campus. They didn’t trust the files to be saved anywhere else, and as long as the buildings weren’t close enough to be caught by the same fire, what’s the harm, right? Risk management by committee at its finest. In the headlong rush to get the hell away from that thing which landed in the Sound, everything at corporate headquarters was abandoned. Mostly, what was lost could be reconstructed or replaced. But not those files, and those files are the future of the company. And so after years of boardroom debate and backroom maneuvering and lawyers smelling blood in the water, they decided to send someone in to go get the files.

Dave is a member of the development team that was working on the project. It has to be him. He’s one of the few survivors who actually knows which physical disk it is that they need to unscrew from the racks and place carefully in the custom-fitted crash pack they’ve designed to carry it in. He was also in the Army once upon a time, and to the rest of the team that makes him a badass but the truth is that in three tours he never left the Green Zone and he barely remembers how to use a rifle.

A thumping helicopter passes them in the distance. It turns. Laura takes a knee, gestures for Dave to do the same. They huddle behind an abandoned car. Cars made of fiberglass and plastic don’t rot and rust the way older cars do. At first blush, they look like they’ve only been here for months, not years. Except there are plants sprouting from the seats.

“Think that spotted us?” she asks.

“I don’t know.”

“Let’s wait.”

And so they do. The helicopter passes them again, and then moves away. The Army still patrols the EZ. They’ve been known to drop troops on zone runners from time to time, but that’s not really what they’re watching for.

The wind shifts, and with it comes a new sound. Chanting in the distance.

“Shit!” hisses Dave.

Laura listens intently for a long moment. “I don’t think they’re coming closer. Let’s finish this and get the hell out of here.”

“Yeah, no kidding.”

Bent low and moving fast, they double time it down the road. There’s the street sign they are looking for, rusted out and leaning over. Dave knows where he is now, and with a surge of confidence he whispers at Laura to follow him and they head directly into the old campus.

As they reach the perimeter fence, Laura grabs his arm and they take a knee to watch and listen.

“These buildings look like they’re in good shape,” she says. “Could be a real attractive squat for a cult.”

“Oh.”

So they wait for a solid twenty minutes, and don’t see anything. Dave isn’t sure, but he thinks the chanting may have gotten louder.

“Okay, let’s go,” says Laura. They move into the campus at a light jog. Dave wishes the company had sprang for some night vision, because right now every shadow seems like an ambush in waiting.

Everything looks smaller than he remembers. Lesser. The memories come thick and fast. The screaming the sky, the thunderous detonations of sonic booms. The low rumble that went on and on after impact. And then the strange noises coming from the radio. The sudden outbreak of murder and madness. The way his team leader looked at him with eyes of burning blue fire and screamed with all the hate in the world. The sudden, sick realization that fell on the escaping survivors like a sandbag that they can never come back.

They find the building they need, but the keycard locks don’t have power so they hunt around for a few minutes until Laura finds a fire escape ladder on the side of the building.

“Boost me up,” she says, and he holds her up on his shoulders while she flips the catch that holds the ladder up. It comes crashing down with a terrifying bang.

“Shit, do you think they heard that?” asks Dave.

“Possibly,” says Laura. Her face is grave. “Let’s do this quick and vanish.”

They scurry up the ladder and pause for a moment while Laura booby traps it with a claymore mine.

The hallways are thick with dust and scattered paper. Their flashlights play over frozen chaos. It’s amazing how big a mess a hundred and fifty people can make when they’re fleeing a building on zero notice. They move down through the fire stairs until they get to the floor Dave’s team was secreted away on, way in the back. Another keycard lock, so Laura smashes the window with the butt of her rifle and reaches through to crank the door open.

Dave goes directly to the backup servers and unscrewing disk drives from the server racks. Tense moments later, they’re packed up and ready to go.

“Let’s get the fuck out of here,” says Laura with no trace of her earlier swagger.

“Right,” says Dave tightly. The drive is strapped to his back. The bonus they’re giving him for this is going to pay off his house, his car, his college debt, his credit cards, and stock him up to send all three of his kids to Stanford, and right now he’s pretty sure that he got lowballed.

They head back to the fire stairs to get up to the roof. The sound of chanting drifts down the stairs towards them.

Dave feels like he’s going to puke. His skin feels cold and clammy. “Uh, so, uh. Let’s go out the back way, okay?” he says in a shaking voice. He backs away from the fire stairs.

“Dave, there’s something I’ve been meaning to tell you,” says Laura. Her eyes are glowing. A pale, watery blue. “The first time I did this, my GPS was broken. I got a little closer than twelve miles.”

Dave turns to swing his rifle up, but by then it is far too late.

TW: Trigger Warnings

Trigger warnings have gained enough cultural currency that they’ve started to pop up into really whiny think pieces. Sigh.

Okay. Let’s get this out of the way.

Let’s start with the basics. What is a trigger warning? Trigger warnings are an emergent behavior of online communities which strive to ensure that all participants in a conversation are participating voluntarily and with informed consent about the topic under discussion. That’s it. They’re an effort to make sure that people who believe that they would suffer psychiatric harm from encountering a certain topic without warning have enough advance notice to either bow out of the conversation, or emotionally steel themselves to withstand it. They usually take the form of a short note at the beginning of an essay, or a video, or so on. They are more common in text works than video or audio works, but not unheard of in all mediums. The term has its origin in the concept of triggers in PTSD; a trigger is a stimulus that can cause an episode of symptoms in people with post traumatic stress disorder.

This is, basically, a good idea. If you’ve never been triggered, and don’t understand what the big deal is, that’s great. Really. Please understand that other people do get triggered. And for them, it’s not the same as being uncomfortable, so much as it’s a real health hazard. And really, trigger warnings are no more intrusive than many other content notes we already smear all over our communications. Video games, movies, and TV all have content ratings and sometimes even audible warnings. This has been happening for years, and hasn’t caused the death of culture yet. (Books, essays, and such are traditionally exempt from that kind of rating, except of course when they’re comic books because new media is evil and must be punished.)

I don’t really see a problem with the idea of trigger warnings, and I think that if you do, you might really want to consider why you oppose them. Does it actually hurt you to see a warning? Probably not. But it may save someone else from getting hurt. So step outside yourself and consider which is more important to you: the safety of others, or your right not to be reminded that other people have problems you don’t.

Okay? Okay.

So that’s my headline, above the fold stance on trigger warnings.

But I also happen to have this handy can of worms right here and it doesn’t look like it’s going to open itself, so lets get down and dirty with some caveats and criticisms. There are a few arguments against trigger warnings that I think are worth taking seriously and discussing on their merits.

 THEORY

One argument against trigger warnings that I can see and even sort of agree with in a very limited, contextual sense, is that it’s a way to force people to speak about certain topics only in certain, community-approved ways. “You can talk about rape, but only if you include the magic trigger warning at the top,” says the scold. (And yes, online social justice communities have a real problem with scolds in their ranks, but that’s a conversation for another day, and a braver blog.)  That kind of power play can seem really intrusive and, if not censorious, then certainly in the same ideological realm. “Communication must be contained, controlled, and classified according to the Greater Good, comrade!” This is why I am adamantly opposed against making them mandatory, or even setting the expectation that they should be included by default in all arenas. And I think this is the main source of most objections to trigger warnings.

People do not like being told how to speak, and if they feel like a trigger warning has become some kind of community-mandated certificate they must apply to everything they say, then they may rebel against the notion. If we want them to work, they’ve got to remain voluntary. The moment they become mandated, they stop being a bottom up emergent behavior, and start being a top down rating system. Rating systems never work. This kind of thing can’t be imposed upon a community, particularly not a community which inhabits a mostly online space, where top down directives inherently operate at a deficit of efficiency. Additionally, there is no single online community, and many different communities have different standards. I’m part of a mailing list where the group ethos is to be caustic bastards, and I have found a lot of value and strength in being part of such a community. Such a group is not for everyone, but for those of us whom it fits, it is a wonderful thing. Trigger warnings would ruin the whole ethos of the place.

Additionally, a trigger warning puts a lot more responsibility on the author of a communication for how the communication is received and interpreted. This is, to put it mildly, a problematic notion. Trigger warnings can seem to be implicitly shifting a lot of the responsibilities readers have for interpreting text* onto the shoulders of the people who authored that text. There’s a quite reasonable fear here: what if I write something that hurts someone because they had some baggage I had no way of knowing about or accounting for, and I’m held to be culpable? Is it fair to hold authors** wholly accountable for every possible reaction to their work? I don’t think so. Authors certainly have a responsibility to write with care, and empathy, and concern for their audience. But that responsibility can only go so far. Meaning is created when a reader interacts with a text, not when that text is laid down. Meaning is a negotiation between reader and text.  The author has responsibility for her words, but not your reading of them. An obvious consequence of this is that different people will negotiate different meanings from the text. You can see this principle at work in any OTP flame war. (“Harry/Hermionie will never die! The text supports it! JK Rowling was wrong!“) A trigger warning can be seen to undermine this principle; it can seem to implicitly support the notion that an objectivist reading of the text is the “correct” one, that texts have a single meaning, and that the meaning a reader will take from a text and consequences of that meaning upon the reader can be reliably predicted a priori.

To be blunt, this is a terrifying notion, and while I do not agree that trigger warnings work in this manner, I do not dismiss the concerns of those who do. I personally consider trigger warnings to fall into the field of things that you can do to show your concern and empathy for your reader, because while you cannot be assured ahead of time how people will read your work, you can be reasonably confident that discussing certain topics will elicit painful reactions for certain people. You can’t predict everyone’s trigger, but that doesn’t mean that no effort should be made to provide warnings for the very common ones. (Although please remember I do not think they should be mandatory.)

Then there is the school of thought that says that trigger warnings are just another part of the continuing effort of some people to carpet the world in eggshells and call that safety. I have mixed feelings about this objection. On the one hand, I see where it is coming from. Some people–not many, but a few–seem to only be able to operate inside a carefully maintained safety bubble, and instead of using that bubble as a refuge to grow stronger so that they may engage with the world as an independent adult, they seem more intent on annexing more and more of the world to sit within their little bubble. This is a tremendously entitled attitude, because it presumes that their needs are (or should be) preeminent over all other concerns. It presumes that if the rest of the world finds something to be innocuous, but they find it to be poisonously objectionable, that their objection should have priority. Worse, this attitude is self-defeating. The thing about comfort zones is that they are constantly shrinking unless you make a point to step outside them every now and again. Comfort zones are, as the name implies, comfortable. But you don’t want to let them become a prison.

On the other hand, we’ve had warnings and labels on media for decades now, and while I would argue that ratings systems are generally bad and impinge upon art and expression, they haven’t destroyed our culture yet. If you oppose trigger warnings out of some principled opposition to labeling any media, then that’s at least consistent, but I’ve never actually seen anyone advance that position. What I have seen is an extraordinary level of fury directed at an emergent behavior that first showed up in spaces primarily controlled and mediated by women, and I don’t think that is a coincidence. So is this really an effort to sand all the rough edges off of life? Or is it a movement to get people to voluntarily provide information to the other members of their community so that they may make informed decisions on if they wish to consent to a particular conversation? Remember that trigger warnings do not necessary imply the attitude I described in the paragraph above; there are plenty of people who use them just to be neighborly. If someone wants to step outside their comfort zone, that’s great, but they should have the opportunity to give informed consent before doing so!

Like I said, I’ve got mixed feelings on this point.

So that’s the three main theoretical objections to trigger warnings that I am aware of and consider worth engaging. There may be some other theoretical objection I’m forgetting at the moment, and if it is brought to my attention, I’ll take a look at it as well.

From this point on we move out of objections to theory and into objections to practice. It might be tempting to say that these objections are less important because they are not objections to the very concept of trigger warnings, but I don’t think that is fair or accurate. A lot of the most passionate arguments against trigger warnings have been objections to how they manifest and are applied to texts, and so it is worth taking a look at these arguments and seeing if there is any merit to them. (Spoiler: I tend to agree with these a lot more than the theoretical objections.)

PRACTICE

The first and most important objection to how trigger warnings actually manifest in the real world is that they can be used to bully and control people. This can take two forms.

The first is the one that people tend to think of when you talk about bullying via trigger warnings: an angry hothouse flower demanding that trigger warnings be included on everything, and if you don’t include them you’re a Bad Person and Bad People deserve all the abuse that can be shoveled onto them. I have not seen this behavior in the wild very often, but it does happen. Usually, people who behave this way are so obnoxious to be around that they get sidelined pretty quick by anyone who doesn’t already think exactly like them, and so are not a very large concern. Remember there are assholes everywhere, and in every movement. You don’t have to take everyone seriously, and don’t let the most embarrassing members of a movement define the entirety of that movement for you.

Much, much more troubling are the people who try to weaponize trigger warnings as a means of marginalizing other people. A very dear friend of mine was once told point blank that the fact that she is fat and disabled was triggering to someone else, and so she should not participate in a public activity. Alternatively, they may have been satisfied by her walking down the streets while ringing a bell and shouting “UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN.” Let us be very clear on something: if another person’s mere existence is a trigger for you, then that is your problem to solve.*** They are under no obligation to curtail their life just so that you won’t have to deal with the horrible trauma of living in a world with people who aren’t like you.

In summation, if you have ever felt the need to write something along the lines of “trigger warning: black people” or “trigger warning: mental disabilities” then please go fuck yourself with a lit road flare.

Another practical objection is that trigger warnings, as they are currently used, seem to be devaluing the concept of triggering. A trigger, in PTSD terms, does not mean “that makes me uncomfortable.” It means “I am having a psychological episode and the thing you are doing is making it worse.” Being triggered into an episode of PTSD is dangerous. It can cause an episode of depression, it make someone temporarily unfit to do their job (with all the professional consequences that implies), and can seriously impinge upon a person’s quality of life, or even their basic self-sufficiency. At the extremes, it can set someone up for an episode of suicidal ideation. It is not simply being made uncomfortable until the uncomfortable stimulus leaves.

And yet we have people claiming to be “triggered” by various things when their behavior suggests they merely found it distasteful. This is one of those things that’s hard to give guidelines for spotting, because it’s so contextual, and because PTSD manifests in so many different ways. As a general rule of thumb, don’t just assume this is what is happening when someone says they are triggered by something that you find to be innocuous. But at the same time, if you spend enough time in certain corners of the Internet, you’ll find colonies of people who seem to be triggered by everything from paying their bills to tying their shoes. Who get “triggered” in one minute, and then enjoy a fascinating, not-at-all-troubled conversation in the next. Who use “you’re triggering me” when they really mean “shut up.”

This is sort of related to the first of the two bully/control objections, but I’m breaking it out as a separate point here because I think it is important to point out how this dilution of the concept of triggering can hurt people who actually have triggers. Because if the group ethos implicitly decides that a “trigger” is really just a matter of courtesy and decorum, and not, you know, a fucking medical issue, then that means the whole space becomes less safe for people who really do need the ability to identify various stimuli as being actively dangerous for them to be around.

This tendency towards dilution becomes especially dangerous in places where these communities abut the internet at large, because people who aren’t familiar with these conversations will observe trigger warnings being requested and given for all manner of exceedingly mild things (I have seen a trigger warning for profanity, for example ) and may eventually conclude that the whole idea is milquetoast bullshit and should be done away with. And so now, another potentially helpful tool has been squandered, and my friends who have PTSD are, for most intents and purposes, back at square one.

The last objection to how trigger warnings are used in practice is that sometimes people who advocate for them behave badly in ways that are unrelated to the actual substance of trigger warnings or their absence. This is a stupid fucking argument and should not be taken seriously.

IMPLEMENTATION

Now, with all that written above, you may have noticed something odd. It sure sounds like I like trigger warnings, and yet there are none on this blog. Here’s why: I don’t use them. I never have, really. There was a time when I found some of the arguments described above to be a little more convincing than I do now, but the root of my opposition to using them was always this:

Triggers can be anythingand everyone is equally valuable, so how can I warn everyone equally? Some people are triggered by seeing dogs; should all posts with pictures of dogs in them come with trigger warnings? Some people are triggered by some of the most random, otherwise innocuous stimuli. It’s impossible to effectively warn for everything, but to warn for some triggers and not others is implicit favoritism.

I’ve since abandoned this position because the perfect should not be the enemy of the good, and just because I can’t warn everyone for their trigger doesn’t mean I shouldn’t warn for really common triggers. Of course, I still don’t use trigger warnings per se.  What I use are content notes.

A content note works better than a trigger warning, I think, for a variety of reasons.

First, they don’t devalue triggers. You can include a content note for some content that may not be triggering to many people, but which will reliably make many of them uncomfortable without implying that triggers are merely a matter of comfort. Comfort matters! It really does. But it’s not as severe an overriding concern as triggering a medical episode is, and so we should not conflate the two. With a content note, you can be courteous to your readers without feeding the dangerous notion that triggers are just things some people don’t like. Meanwhile, those who really would get triggered by whatever it is the content note is signposting get all the warning they need to protect themselves. It works for everybody.

Second, they put the focus on the work, not on people’s reaction to the work. The first page of my first novel has only one sentence on it: “Content note: this book contains depictions of sexual assault.” The sentence is clear, concise, and focused on the contents of the text, not any person’s reaction. It’s not a promise I’m making to the reader, or the fulfillment of an obligation. It’s a note between the text and the reader about the text the reader is getting ready to engage with. The space between the text and the reader is where meaning is negotiated and created, and so that is the most appropriate place to situate such a note. It says to the reader how you take this text is up to you, but heads up, here’s something you might want to know before continuing.

Could a trigger warning carry the same meaning? Quite likely. But I think it also implicitly carries a lot of other baggage. A trigger warning is not a note about the text, it is a note about the presumed reaction to the text that some readers may have. And in that, it somehow seems to trespass upon a space that I hold sacred, the space between reader and text. I have my favorite authors, the ones who reliably create texts in which I find great meaning or even just a fun few hours, but that does not mean that I think they are wholly, or even mostly responsible for the experiences I have when reading. When the author steps in to warn me about an experience she thinks I may have, rather than simply providing me with a note to tell me about some of the text I am about to read, it is as if she is jiggling my elbow, and whispering in my ear. No, stop. Your part in this ended when you sent it out for publishing. Now it is the reader’s.

I am aware that this is really deep into lit nerd territory, and so others may not find this argument to be persuasive, but this alone is enough for me to favor an alternative to trigger warnings. For most people, the first point is probably the more important one.

Another facet of how I use content warnings is that I use them sparingly. I do this because I don’t believe in safe spaces, and I think attempting to create them is a bad idea. There are safer spaces, considered spaces, but no place is truly safe. However I do care for my readers, and so I want the warnings that I give them to be taken seriously. If a warning becomes routine, it loses its efficacy. Does that run the risk that someone could see something on this blog that unsettles them or makes them uncomfortable or even triggers them without being warned ahead of time? Well, yes, but that’s a risk that we all take getting out of bed in the morning. I can’t promise safety, only consideration and my best efforts.

I think that’s what most people who use trigger warnings think, too. We know we can’t promise safety, we can only do the best we can. They just reached a different conclusion than I did about what that means for them.

Which is fine.

 

 

*I’m using “text” here in the litary analysis sense; that is to say, the sum body of a peice of communication, even if it is not literally text.

**Have you ever written anything online, ever? Then you’re one of these authors I’m talking about. Don’t think this only applies to professional writers.

***An exception can be made here for, say, someone who tried to rape and murder you, but that’s an individual who has made themselves unwelcome in your life for what they did. That distinction is critical!