Thought I'd share my (working) definition of anti-racism that I've been using in my recent talks. Feel free to use with appropriate acknowledgement.
The reason for my definition is that I found many of the existing ones incomplete or not direct enough.
An explanation of the emphasis. White supremacy is bolded because it is the global phenomenon that organizes racism. Words/phrases that are bold, italicized, and underlined indicate actions/processes that need to occur for antiracist praxis (in my view), and the words
that are only underlined are specific points of emphasis that further distinguish my definition. Specifically, there is a reasonable case that white supremacy "harms" white people but it is indirect and less severe than other groups. I also use the phrase harmed by
white supremacy to avoid the "what about my group?" potential exclusions that are caused when trying to identify all the relevant groups. That in and of itself is a divisive tool of white supremacy that I purposely evade. Lastly, the historical and contemporary harms are
because true anti-racism includes not just changing our present and future, but also reparations for the intergenerational and cumulative harms of the past. It also recognizes that racism and its manifestations vary in time (and space).
should also be 2022-2023 since i actually presented it at @NAPCRG 2022.
Was just reflecting with a person I love and realize its a teachable moment for non-religious doctors who interact with religious patients. I cant speak from anything other than my southern Black Christian experience. But in 2017, my mom was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic
cancer. She died 30 days after diagnosis. I won't go to much into detail but the teachable moment was.. She was gonna die when she walked in the door. Their were no viable treatment options. They tried a few treatment measures but never said to her that they were for palliation.
They kept saying they were trying things and eventually tried something and said now its "in gods hand". I'm almost certain that this oncologist wasn't religious. And to me, that was cowardice. Earlier that week he pulled me into the hall and showed me the scans .
I am not okay. Being trans and doing this research and having to work on two fronts , inside the field to correct scientists who do shoddy work for idk self interest, and outside for people who hate us. ROGD as far as academic research goes was over prior to jacks paper.
By doing a bad study @jack_turban reinvigorated this discussion In academia . This is why I have always been critical of cis people who are extracting their careers from the plight of trans people. The incentives aren’t as grave for them. This was reactionary science that we
As a demonstration of the vulnerabilities that poorly done science can cause even when it is with good "intention" for social justice I share another critique of the Turban paper. This is by sociologist Michael Briggs. Unfortunately, much of his work is not supportive
of what we would generally refer to as "gender-affirming care". Which I think is medically necessary and evidence based. However, because of the sloppiness of the original article, his critique is COMPLETELY valid. We also identified this issue but left it on the table
I've gotten an underlying narrative to the recent critique that people think I am "going after Jack". Even some of my friends are like "you really dragged him". I want to upend that and also push back on the implicit biases underlying it. It's not secret that I am critical of
Jack's platform, his positionality and outsized influence in transgender health research given the quality, breadth, and depth of his work in comparison to other trans scholars more junior and senior to him. However, if it was personal, I would have written critiques
on other papers that I deemed lacking. Generally my approach to his work has been to assess it on its scientific merits AND net benefit or detriment to trans communities. This recent paper had egregious errors enough sufficient to warrant rebuttal.
Sharing our important work, a pre-print of or response to the recent publication by Turban et al on sex assigned at birth ratio. In this pre-print, we highlight the serious theoretical and methodological shortcomings in the paper osf.io/preprints/soca…
and discuss the importance of doing methodologically rigorous work when using science as a tool for social justice in public health. The original article: publications.aap.org/pediatrics/art… misrepresents the data and uses incorrect methods to answer a question that in and of itself is
flawed from conception. Currently, a shortened version of this pre-print is under consideration at @aap_peds for a comment/letter to the editor and it is our hope that they publish it in the journal to have an open and transparent dialogue.
I think we all have our own biases and idiosyncrasies in our work. For me, I can work with most people who are genuinely interested in health equity and doing the work but my close partnerships, mentor-mentee (either direction), and long-term collaborations really require more.
I've learned that people who make demands of my time out the gate, without spending time to get to learn each other as persons (in an appropriate work way, what brings you to health equity research, what are your guiding principles in how you work and what you work on etc),
or people who assume a level of familiarity from twitter etc without knowing me tend to rub me the wrong way quickly and decisively. I'm working on it, but in general once that hole is dug it can't be undug. I try to also do my due diligence and pay that same sort of care and