I had to look up the term âbathroom policingâ. It seemed odd that there would be a policy against telling someone to âpick up that paper towel and put it IN the trash this timeâ.
I was hoping someone here would explain wtf that meant.
Does anyone have an actual, ya know, Text link to the policy? Rather than a photo of a sign that cuts off at least part of the bottom?
Further, on top of @newlimintedâs point/question about the term âbathroom policingâ not really being in the common lexicon, what exactly is âharassing photography or recordingâ?
Frankly, with terms like that, phrases where they can decide new definitions on the fly, Iâm glad Iâm nowhere near it.
Weâve seen incidents where people decide on a whim what they feel is âharassing photographyâ, from a dude with a quad on a beach taking general photos from tens to a hundred feet up, all the way to things some rational folks might raise an eyebrow at. Doesnât mean it should have a âzero toleranceâ (aka, zero thought process) policy toward it.
For âbathroom policingâ, read gender policing in the toilets â it makes it clearer. People who canât âpassâ as âfullyâ male or female for whatever reason attract verbal and/or physical abuse in toilets for being in the wrong one.
Now if all public toilets were a unisex area with an open and common hand-washing area with basins and private toilet cubicles off it, there would be no issue. There is no policing a public area that everyone has to use âŚ
I had to look it up, too. It refers to policing who is using which bathroom. ie. transgendered or androgynous people should not be told to use the other bathroom
Itâs in the article. Click the âCosplay is not Consentâ link.
Harassing photography is when you chase down someone who clearly doesnât want to be photographed. These rules basically codify the social construct of: Donât be a dick.
Sure, they are in a public space, but you can still be a considerate person. People who cannot be a considerate person will not be allowed into the con. Since you have no constitutional right to attend comic con, your rights are not being infringed upon.
Makes sense to me.
Nobody said anything about constitutional rights. If youâre a paying attendee of the con, it seems like you should have a clear idea of what conduct is and isnât allowed, and, this doesnât cut it.
There was a discussion on Boing Boing just a few weeks ago, where itâs clear that even among regular photographers and cosplayers, thereâs no clear understanding of what the social construct is. Combine that with a so called zero tolerance policy, the result is a chilling effect, and a one way ratchet.
It may seem obvious to you, it may seem obvious to someone else. Question is, are you coming up with the same obvious? Because from other discussions, that dosnât necessarily seem to be true.
I could see how that could cut both ways, not that I have an suggestion for improving it.
Hereâs the social construct:
Did you seek consent?
Was it given freely?
If the answers to both are âyesâ then you are not harassing someone.
If you didnât seek consent, youâre a dick. See what you can do about that.
If it wasnât given, and you proceed with the action anyway, youâre a dick and should be removed from the con.
Frankly, I donât think they are worried about the chilling effect on the people taking pictures, theyâre worried about the chilling affect of asshole photographers making attendees uncomfortable. And if that ratchet were to mean you canât go to the con just to take pictures, I imagine they are okay with that.
Unisex washrooms would still have the risk of âpolicingâ, e.g. users not presenting as male using the urinals. Possibly why proponents of unisex washrooms also advocate for the elimination of urinals?
Urinals are a large part of why menâs toilets have shorter lines; you can pack more urinals into the same area (or even higher density with a âtroughâ or âwallâ setup), and turnover is significantly faster â sitting to pee takes twice as long as using a urinal.
Personally, Iâve seen the inside of a public womenâs washroom, and oppose Unisex washrooms because it would lead to men peeing in the bushes outside.
So, if someone takes a picture, say, from an elevated position, of the area at large, the expectation is that theyâve sought and received active consent to all people possibly contained in that photo?
I think not.
That thereâs no candid photography, it all must be staged, and pre-approved? Kinda doubt it.
This isnât as cut and dry as it seems to you, doubtless because youâve not thought it all the way through. Quick and glib answers sound great, but âDonât be a Dickâ isnât actually a very useful way to manage human behavior when the rubber actually meets the road.
This is much bigger than just one person taking photos. Or even photos in general.
Look, Nobody wants harassment (well, possibly a few assholes do. So, nobody of consequence wants harassment). But defining it in vague terms, with heavy notices of âZero Toleranceâ doesnât actually solve much. Your social construct doesnât match everyoneâs. And enacting so called âZero Toleranceâ generally means gravitating to not even a lowest common denominator, rather a weakest link approach. And thatâs insanity.
Again, I believe the intent of the organizers (and I agree) is that if the end result of this policy is less photographers and more cosplayers, they are ok with any collateral damage.
So a âzero toleranceâ works fine, because they are okay with it occasionally hitting an incorrect target as long as that makes their attendees feel safer.
How is that hard to process?
Iâm totally down for âno sexual harassmentâ, and agree that itâs needed. I also Cosplay myself a wee bit when I get my geek on, but - and I am certainly not in the âwearing a short skirt == asking for badnessâ camp, but I just have to point this out - yes, itâs a specific example, but it supports the larger point of âscantily clad women wondering why theyâre being treated as sex objectsâ when, lets face it, todayâs media says âwomen are sex objectsâ in every way/shape/form it can.
Check this video out at YouTube from DragonCon 2014:
Specifically, check time 0:43 to 0:59 (same girl thatâs used for the bumper on it). If you are going out in public dressed like that - even a Con - you are going to get stared at, even leered at - by both men and women. Youâll get the attention youâre obviously seeking. Not to play up the ânerds who live in their parents basement and the only access to women they have is via pr0nâ angle either, but, in all honesty, if this girl gets bumped by a âbonerâ, Iâm sorry, but she has no one to blame for that but herself.
Itâs a touchy subject, and Iâm skirting the edge of it - I get that - but as with all things personal responsibility is always a factor. Yes, any gal should/is free to dress however they like, but they also must understand that - in the really real world - dressing a certain way will solicit a certain response. Which response your attire will solicit should be taken into account.
Side Note: I typed this out while I was in a meeting @ work, so if itâs rough and not as eloquent as it should be - donât harp on the little-things - think big picture if you strongly disagree.
Sigh, youâre not really getting the objection. This is more than just photos, itâs just that happens to be any easy thing to point at because itâs REALLY nebulous.
Obviously they ARE ok with it, theyâve gone that direction, but, the question is, is it really a good idea?
If you have a zero tolerance policy, you are forced simply accept any report of harassment as valid, with no real investigation or evaluation, and simply kick anyone out reported as such. If you investigate, then you are making a judgement call on if itâs harassment or not, and if you decide it isnât, youâve âTolerated harassmentâ. So any action that anyone might perceive as harassing becomes suspect. It leads to a toxic environment, not a safe one.
If youâve ever been around a so called zero tolerance policy, your stupidity in bureaucracy alarm should be going off as loud as mine. This is the sort of thing that leads to schools suspending or expelling first graders for chewing pop-tarts in the shapes of guns.
In this instance, given itâs a private event, not a public school, you have few to none of the constitutional issues, but, the issues with stupidity in application of the policy arnât limited to school bureaucracies.
The end result, once this goes to itâs logical progression, is fewer attendees period, cosplayers or not.
Where are you deriving the âno investigation or evaluationâ amendment?
I see it neither on the sign, nor the linked policy.
âShe was dressed like that and that means she was asking for it!â is not a good defense of harassment.
Costumes are designed to get attention, of course. But this isnât Thought Policing. This is a policy against harassment. Harassment is a behavior. And while we cannot control our thoughts and feelings, we can control our reactions to them. It is a policy against ACTION. We are in control of our actions (more or less).
That lady â like any cosplayer â is dressed in part to get visual attention. This does not give anyone else free reign to touch, stalk, intimidate, or verbally harass her. Look. Leer, even, no one can stop you. But donât harass.
And if thatâs ambiguous to you in the moment, you need to clarify that line with the cosplayer before you do anything.
Honestly, that last bit is sometimes more what policies like this are about: think before you act. Ask before you do something to someone else. If you donât, weâre not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, here. Consent is something that is granted specifically and verbally, not something that can be assumed. But, of course, no one can stop you from having whatever private fantasies you have in your head at a con any more than they can on the subway.
Itâs inherit to the concept of âZero Toleranceâ, a more or less natural result. If youâre simply interested in prohibiting clear wrongs, you donât need such a policy. No institution that has implemented such a policy had a real issue kicking out those that were clearly violating some known norm. For instance, Schools didnât need zero tolerance gun policies to kick out the people that shot other people, That happened with or without Zero Tolerance. They enacted it for the cases where an administrator would otherwise choose some lesser action. But we see the sorts of things that result from that.
What you get from Zero Tolerance, enacted to be more stringent than a simple not allowed policy, is absolutely no room for gray area. No judgement allowed.
If you investigate, and, find thereâs no actual evidence, he said she said, you have to assume itâs valid, because Zero Tolerance. If the objection is that it dosnât violate the policy, well, itâs worded to apply to just about anything, and is judged in the eyes of the accuser, so, that makes no difference either. In that case, why investigate at all? Itâs a complete waste of time. If youâre more or less forced to take the accuser at their word, because the presumption is set that theyâre correct, What would even be the point of investigating?
So your suggestion is exactly what? All I hear from you is that there might be problems with this.
Guess what? There were problems before. If there are fewer problems with this in place, itâs a win.
If there are more problems in place, they can adjust the policy next year.
What planet do you live on where the correct course of action in the above situation isnât âblame the guy bumping people with his bonerâ?
