Deylami 4 [(Shirin, Uminnesota dept of political science) “(Un)Closeting Democracy: The Limits and Possibilities of Legalism in Pursuit of Queer Politics” 2004 Southern Political Science Association Conference: New Orleans, Louisiana] AT
While I am sympathetic to Young and Fajer’s perspectives, I am troubled by their insistence that agents, especially those with more power, will automatically feel more empathy and act accordingly based on their interactions with other groups. This assumes first that these groups are autonomous and preformed and secondly that these “preformed” identity groups will set their struggles for power aside in order to produce some sort of sympathetic unity. But as history shows this assumption is both off the mark and far too idealistic. How might political recognition work in a more pragmatic setting where the struggle for power between different and constantly forming groups is the very essence of politics? Both Ian Shapiro and William Connolly have argued that a thriving opposition is necessary to a healthy democracy. Shapiro maintains that any claim to universality or generality emphasizes and privileges the status quo (Shapiro 1997). Thus recognition should not merely acknowledge difference and then set it aside to pursue a higher good; rather recognition should be understood as recognizing those who you are in opposition with and reevaluating your identity based on that opposition (Connolly 1995). Connolly implores an “ethos of critical responsiveness” as the cornerstone of democratic practice informed by pluralization. Critical to this ethos is a conception of identity that is constitutive through its agonism towards others. Rather than seeing identities pre-formed and then dispersed into the public realm without any consequence to dominating identities, Connolly argues that the proliferation of non-hegemonic identities into the public sphere implicates a major shift in hegemonic identities as well. This critical shift can be very traumatic to hegemonic identities and they may often enfeeble these challengers in order to protect themselves. For the introduction of a new possibility of being out of old injuries and differences contains a paradoxical element: the drive to recognition precedes consolidation of the identity to be recognized, and the panic it often induces in the self-confidence of established identities tempts them to judge the vulnerable entry through disabling identifications already sedimented in the old code. Such a bind sets up the new entrant to be repudiated even before “it” becomes crystallized in the institutions of law, marriage, work, investment, the military, religion, and education (Connolly 1995, XV). From the outset, the new identity is in confrontation with the already established identities and thus incorporates this repudiation into its very existence. In turn, the already established identity, manipulates the language of neutrality and fairness, to create a disjuncture between the pre- existing order and the newly emerging identity. The importance of this paradox is that the already established identity encodes the disruption of emerging identities as necessary to its very existence. This paradox is well illustrated by the relationship between queer identity and its already established counterpart, heterosexuality, where often heterosexuals claim that legal protections of sexuality are unfair “special” protections. 13 Connolly’s recognition of this antagonistic set of relationships helps him to develop and defend an “ethos of critical responsiveness” which hinges on the interconstitutive nature of formed and forming identities. Like Young, he too, argues for the recognition of difference within and among people. But, unlike Young, Connolly pursues recognition beyond representation to look at the way that the acknowledgment of differences can fundamentally shift one’s identity. Recognition of difference is not merely based on empathy or the goal for diverse representation, rather any move to recognize difference is a move to fundamentally alter the nature of all the identities involved. To practice an “ethos of critical responsiveness” identity groups must operate on the acknowledgement that their identities are contingent upon a particular socio-historical framework that is ever shifting as new identities come into the frame. Of course those in power have very little stake in this sort of responsiveness, for they maintain their power by adhering to a set way of being. Even while they may encourage diversity within the public realm, their modus operandi is to maintain their dominance through the delegitimation, but not an erasure, of other’s difference. In the context of the queer and GLBT communities this deligitamcy comes from casting homosexuals as criminal sodomites as in Bowers v. Hardwick or by rendering all forms of subversive sexuality as amoral and predatory. Connolly, thus, argues that it is the task of the emerging identities to unmask the way in which their differences call into question and often alter the being of already established dominant identities. But how do emerging and challenging identities do this given their political and social barriers?
NCTE no date [National Center for Transgender Equality “Transgender Equality and the Federal Government”] AT
Privacy is both a right and a matter of survival for transgender people. Disclosure of transgender status can result in disrespect, discrimination, and even violence. Recent degradation of privacy laws in the United States has disproportionately, though often unintentionally, impacted transgender people. Implementing the following proposals will allow individuals’ transgender status to remain private without negatively impacting national security interests or any other relevant government programs or purposes.
FAILURE TO PROTECT DATA PRIVACY CAUSES PEOPLE TO NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION -- TURNS ALL THE EXPRESSION IMPACTS
Ambrose 13 - Meg Leta Ambrose, Fellow-Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society, 2013, "It's About Time: Privacy, Information, Life Cycles, and the Right to Be Forgotten," Stanford Technology Law Review, Winter, 16 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 369, p. 398
Whether a Preservationist or Deletionist, the above persistence research shows that intervention is necessary to promote either perspective; a lack of intervention represents another perspective in and of it itself. While all information that lands online will not remain there forever, more information finds itself online and may land on a site that maintains its content for a very long time. This information may be truly harmful to reputation and identity, but also may (have) create(d) a norm of non-disclosure that negatively impacts society on a larger scale. The engagement in self-presentation, according to David Velleman, is what it means to be a person. "The person conceives of himself as dynamic and as trying to improve himself morally." n195 Just the threat of digital permanence may prevent what John Stuart Mill called "experiments in living." n196 Without control of self-presentation and room for experimentation, moral autonomy suffers. In order to prevent this type of self-stagnation, limiting access to or deleting personal information from the past has been proposed. Combating permanent information with a right to delete results in take it or leave it options for policy-makers -- they must choose to either support access and expression or privacy and reinvention. Instead, I suggest a more nuanced analysis of old information. Determining whether self-stagnation harms caused by access to personal information, or a lack of control over the flow of personal information, outweigh the value of the aged information requires a closer look at how information changes.
Discrimination based on involuntary outing
Amnesty 14 [(Amnesty International) “THE STATE DECIDES WHO I AM LACK OF RECOGNITION FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE” 2014 report] AT
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSGENDER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR GENDER IDENTITY Whether at school or in the workplace, transgender people are often discriminated against because of widespread prejudices and gender-based stereotypes stemming from standardized notions of masculinity and femininity. Such discrimination occurs irrespective of whether or not transgender people bear documents that reflect their gender identity. However, the lack of such documents can further expose transgender people to discrimination whenever they have to produce a document with gender markers that do not correspond to their gender identity and expression. Such involuntary “outings” are a major concern in countries where transgender people cannot access legal gender recognition or where burdensome and lengthy procedures make it difficult to do so. In a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Europe (hereafter referred to as FRA LGBT survey), 29 per cent of the transgender respondents said they had been discriminated against in the workplace or while looking for jobs in the year ahead of the survey.12 Thirty-five per cent of them said they had experienced violence or the threat of violence during the five years ahead of the survey. Fifty per cent of those who had experienced violence or the threat of violence in the 12 months ahead of the survey, perceived they had been victimized because of their gender identity.13 In recent years, dozens of transgender people have been killed in Europe – at least 84 since January 2008, with the highest numbers in Turkey (34) and Italy (26).14 Although few states in Europe collect disaggregated data on hate crime perpetrated on grounds of gender identity, existing statistics raise concern. For example, more than 300 hate crimes were perpetrated against transgender people in England and Wales in the United Kingdom in less than a year between 2011 and 2012.15 In some instances, public authorities, including the police, harass transgender people. For example, in 2012 dozens of transgender women in Greece were arrested and forced to undergo HIV tests. The arrests were made on the basis of a regulation that had been introduced in May of that year, then suspended in June 2013 and subsequently reintroduced in July.