science in action

Just last week, we were talking about a proposed definition of "planet" that would have made the total number of planets in our solar system 12 and possibly more.

Yesterday, the headlines were grabbed by a surprise development: the demotion of Pluto, now called a 'dwarf planet' or 'pluton' or 'trans-Neptunian object.' This final decision was hailed in the media as "science in action." "This is really all about science, which is all about getting new facts. Science has marched on." And so on.

The new, now official, definition of planet requires a planet to be round and to have cleared out other objects in its orbit.

But now we can read about the seamy underside of this decision: it was not "science marching on" as much as it was dirty politics.

The vote took place at the International Astronomical Union's (IAU) 10-day General Assembly in Prague. The IAU has been the official naming body for astronomy since 1919.

Only 424 astronomers who remained in Prague for the last day of the meeting took part.

... Owen Gingerich chaired the IAU's planet definition committee and helped draft an initial proposal raising the number of planets from nine to 12. The Harvard professor emeritus blamed the outcome in large part on a "revolt" by dynamicists - astronomers who study the motion and gravitational effects of celestial objects.

"In our initial proposal we took the definition of a planet that the planetary geologists would like. The dynamicists felt terribly insulted that we had not consulted with them to get their views. Somehow, there were enough of them to raise a big hue and cry," Professor Gingerich said.

"Their revolt raised enough of a fuss to destroy the scientific integrity and subtlety of the [earlier] resolution."

He added: "There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon. Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on'."

... Alan Stern agreed: "I was not allowed to vote because I was not in a room in Prague on Thursday 24th. Of 10,000 astronomers, 4% were in that room - you can't even claim consensus.

from Pluto vote 'hijacked' in revolt (thanks to neitherday for the link)

The soundness of the new definition is also questionable:

One of the three criteria for planethood states that a planet must have "cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". The largest objects in the Solar System will either aggregate material in their path or fling it out of the way with a gravitational swipe. Pluto was disqualified because its highly elliptical orbit overlaps with that of Neptune.

But Dr Stern pointed out that Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Neptune have also not fully cleared their orbital zones. Earth orbits with 10,000 near-Earth asteroids. Jupiter, meanwhile, is accompanied by 100,000 Trojan asteroids on its orbital path. These rocks are all essentially chunks of rubble left over from the formation of the Solar System more than four billion years ago. "If Neptune had cleared its zone, Pluto wouldn't be there," he added.

Sadly, we learn from this a lot more about science in action than we ever wanted to know or admit. We expect of scientists that they are mature, forthright, honest, and, well, safely geeky, enough so to be removed from sneakiness of this sort; more concerned with getting a measurement just right or advancing human knowledge than playing naked-ape games.

(no subject)

The debate over transmen in the lesbian community seems to be reaching a head.

It's an issue because the life-journey of many transmen takes them through the lesbian community, where they find lovers and friends and support. Many transmen stay in the community even after they have begun to identify as male, because family is not so easy to give up. (Actually, it's not that unusual to see someone stay in a community after one has moved beyond the community's defining concern, because community is as much about connecting with people and giving one another aid and support as it is about sharing things in common.)

This is the second time this week i've seen an essay lamenting this development. The first was in Sunday's New York Times. Today i saw this:

Sam had been an adorable butch, with an easy sexiness. But he had decided that he wasn’t comfortable in his women’s body. His first time at Michigan last year had been a turning point for him; he felt acceptance for his own choices. And this led him to decide to take hormones and a male-ish name, and to flirt with the male pronoun.

He told us that this would likely be his last year at Fest. Once he had breast surgery, he said, he would consider himself no longer eligible to attend under Michigan’s womyn-born-womyn policy, though he currently has no plans to change his vagina into a penis.

“I haven’t changed who I am,” he said. “I’ve just changed my body so I’m more comfortable in it.”

... Some people — I’m among them — worry that the trans movement is encouraging our most masculine women to abandon their female bodies for male ones. We worry that instead of fighting a world culture that discourages women from being strong and masculine, they simply give up and decide to join, well, “The Man.”

... I wonder if transmen such as Sam, who aren’t planning on changing their vagina to a penis and so who still are, technically, women, could think about keeping the female pronoun even as they masculinize their bodies.

I just wish that he would still consider himself a she.

from Changing pronouns

For every transperson out there, there's a family who pleaded with them not to change. Mine was a bit less polite than this about it (My father said, "You must have searched really hard to find the one thing i can't possibly accept") but the message here is basically the same: it's not about what you need, it's about what we want you to continue doing.

Do you ever hear of gay people asking their straight sons or daughters to deny who they are? What about friends of cisgendered people asking them to reconsider their gender? It's basically unthinkable. But it is perfectly acceptable to ask a transperson to deny who they are, especially after they have overcome incredible odds, swimming against the tide of transphobia, to figure out who they are.

It's like climing a great mountain. It begins with having to figure out for yourself, in the nearly-total absense of any cultural, social, or linguistic context, what it is that's "wrong" with you. This introspection occurs in the face of intense pressure from society, family, and friends to conform to gender expectations. It takes shape over many years, through an obstacle course of self-doubt, self-loathing, suicidal desires, depression, maybe emotional abuse or violence, to finally find voice in a single declaration: "i am a woman," or "i am a man."

And then once you reach that summit, the guru waiting at the top kicks you in the face. "I just wish that he would still consider himself a she."

A year and a half ago, i wrote that those who are not transgendered cannot possibly imagine what it is like. I don't think i could find better evidence than this. If someone who is not trans could possibly imagine what it takes, what it costs, they wouldn't make a request like this.

Most of us have a desire to please the people around us, especially the ones who love and nurture us. We are willing to give and sacrifice to give back to the ones who have given and sacrificed for us. For everyone who transitions, there's a family who derides this action as "selfish." And for everyone who transitions, there's a transperson who stays in the closet because she or he buys that to do otherwise would be selfish.

Most transpeople are old enough to remember a time when the trans community did not exist as such. A few support groups here and there, a few mailing lists you could join if you were lucky enough to find them. No political presence whatsoever. No employment protection, pretty much no recognition of transgenderism whatsoever. A lot has changed in the course of a single generation. The 18 year old transpeople of today can very quickly find a support network that did not exist when i was 18. (Actually, the 18 year old transpeople of today have probably been tapped into that support network for several years already. I'm so envious, but it's marvelous.)

With this increased visibility and respectability, it's no wonder that larger numbers of transmen are finding their voice. But in these two essays, it's said that the trans community is leeching away the most masculine women. It is only the perspective of cisgender-normativism who can see transmen as "women becoming men." Only cisgender-normativism would see transition as a change from something authentic to something inauthentic, as the donning of a disguise, rather than the dawning of something real in someone's life.