Wherein I observe that height is not political

 I spent some time yesterday flipping through my trusty, old copy of Gulliver's Travels.  As a political scientist, a science fiction fan, and someone drawn to dark humor, my fondness for Jonathan Swift is, as we say in statistics, "overdetermined," but what can I say?  Embrace the cliche.  Swift was just great.  Anyway, I needed to spend some quality time with Swift yesterday.  By the title, and the reference to Gulliver, you may think you know where I'm going.  Not quite.

OK, Lilliput.  But I have a different observation about Lilliput.  Do you remember the nature of the political schism in Lilliput?  It was between the Big Enders, and the Little Enders.  Which end of the egg do you break?  That's it.  That's the big schism.  Wars are fought over this, in Lilliput.  Why?  'Cuz.  Is that any more absurd than wars over sectarian dogma, or fighting over stupid shit like the melanin content of your skin?  Science fiction authors have been beating this not-very-subtle point into the ground, literally for centuries.  Swift wrote Gulliver's Travels in 1726, although the edition on my shelf says it incorporates text from 1735.  I'm not a literary historian.  I'm just a schlub who likes to read.  Regardless, the themes of either "war over stupid identity thing," or, "oppression over stupid identity thing," where the author uses some metaphor in the text for some aspect of identity in the real world is, if not a cliche at this point, then difficult to do well by escaping from the weight of that which has come before.  Remember that original Star Trek episode in which the aliens were either black on the left and white and the right, or the mirror of that, and they fought over that?  This is a thing.  It's actually the main thing in science fiction and fantasy right now, I'd argue.  Look at what gets nominated for awards.  I have commented on trends in the literature, and trends in fandom before, so I won't belabor the point.

Identity.  Protected classes.  There are several ways that we think about these concepts.  There is the social and scholarly lens, and the legal lens.  Right now, the academic lens is "intersectionality."  If you are in academia, or academia-adjacent, you have encountered the term, and the concept of intersectionality as a way of thinking about not just identity, but society.  Here it is, in brief.  You are the intersection of your politically distinct and politically relevant traits.  I am a CIS, straight, white male, and so forth.  You can add various other traits, as one may deem worthy, but this is the nature of who you are, according to the model of intersectionality.  The standard critique of it, morally, philosophically, and empirically, is that it is anti-individualistic, and reductivist, but I'm not going to get into a thing about intersectionality as a general concept today.  Instead, I'm going to point out what isn't there.

Height.

So.  I'm a CIS, straight, white, male, and sure, throw in other stuff as an intersectional theorist may deem appropriate, or as I may deem appropriate, but that's kind of the main stuff.  But how about this?  I'm also kinda short.  I'm not a... what, we're not supposed to say, "midget," or what's the term these days?  I dunno.  Whatever I say will be deemed horribly offensive in ten years anyway, and that's not even snark.  Stephen Pinker.  The "euphemism treadmill."  It's a thing.  Regardless, I'm just kinda short.

And here's the thing about short.  It's different for men than it is for women.  And we all know it.  It's even measurable.  There are salary differences, short men are less likely to get hired... like, seriously.  There's money at stake.  This is replicated.  Economists have been debating the reasons for a long time, and there are seriously arguments about whether or not it is because short people are just less intelligent, on average.  Not necessarily that any individual short person couldn't be smart, but you know, maybe there's, like, a correlation.  Try this one.  Available from the NIH, no less!

Um...  uh...

Gee... substitute some other variables for height in there, and watch what'd happen.  Hey, I'm tryin' to remember... have there been any dust-ups about books... intelligence, and maybe, what's that dude's name?  Chuckie M...  tip of my tongue.  I guess I'm too short to be smart enough to remember it.  Maybe I need the assistance of someone taller.  You know.  There's only so much you can expect from those of us with such limitations.  Oh, well.

But you know, it isn't merely the economics of shortness.  If you are a male of lesser stature, you have certainly experienced the following.  Someone taller, standing over you, trying to use height to intimidate, or at least impose.  Social dominance through physical size.  And if you are tall... have you ever done it?  Consciously?  Unconsciously?

This shit's real.  And this is without getting into the schoolyard.

So... height.  Your driver's license lists your height.  (And your sex, but not your race!)  It is a physical trait, partially inherited, but also influenced by environmental factors.  Yet, there ain't really a whole lot I could do about it.  I mean, a Big Ender could break an egg on the little end.  Who the fuck cares?  That's the point.  I can't make myself tall.

Yet nobody says, "I identify as a short person."  Or, "my identity is 'short.'"  Nor anything like that.  Despite the very real social and economic effects.  And the inherited nature of the trait.

Legally, there is a set of stuff that we call, "protected classes."  Race, sex, religion...  The Supreme Court ruled that transgender people have protection under the "sex" categorization in Bostock v. Clayton County, which was interesting because transgender identity is described by the transgender community as being about internal sense of self-- gender identity, rather than physical sex.  The transgender community disputes the meaningfulness of the physiological/biological (sex) in favor of the internal sense of self (gender).  Well, if that's the case, then how do you seek legal protection under the physiological/biological categorization of sex?

Logically speaking, in order to convince the Supreme Court to treat transgender identity as a protected class, the transgender community had to contradict one of the most common arguments made within the transgender community.  They had to tell the Supreme Court that physical sex matters, while telling the rest of society that physical sex doesn't matter.

Why?  Because the "protected class" thing is narrow.  We don't have a generic principle in the law that says, "don't be a fuckin' asshole."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we had a generic principle in the law that said, "don't be a fuckin' asshole."  Would discrimination against transgender people violate the asshole principle?

Yup.  That's asshole-ism.  In fact, I think we can take all of the various forms of mistreatment of different groups, and combine them under the umbrella term of "asshole-ism."

If we had a "no asshole-ism" rule, the transgender community wouldn't have had to make a disingenuous argument to the Supreme Court.  And yes, it was disingenuous.  Find me another time that they talk about how much physical sex matters and that they need to be categorized and scrutinized by their physical sex!  Why did they do it?  'Cuz there isn't a "no asshole-ism" rule.  On the other hand, sex is a protected class.  So, do you want to make the argument you believe, or make the argument that'll win?  They made the argument that won, and defeated assholes.  Through the power of disingenuousness.

See, I don't have to wonder why nobody likes me.  It's 'cuz I write stuff like this.

So anyway, we come back to the legal constraint that there isn't a "no asshole-ism" rule.  And because there isn't a "no asshole-ism" rule, shortness is not a protected class under civil rights law.  I don't have to worry about this.  I have tenure.  Has shortness hurt my career in any way?  Maybe.  Dunno.  Probably less than my mouth, but when a manuscript goes out for submission, it doesn't list my height, so that works for me.  However, if you are a short person in the workforce, you do have to worry about this stuff.  An employer could see your resume, call you in for an interview (assuming that kind of thing ever happens again), look at you, see that you are five-foot-fuck-you're-too-short, doodle a caricature on his notepad while you talk, and then laughingly say that he'll get back to you as you leave with no intention of doing so.  'Cuz you're a fuckin' dwarf, and he just wants to toss you.

And you know what?  This is not a violation of civil rights law.  Because shortness is not a protected class.  Despite the fact that all of this is known and measurable.

Am I arguing that we should politicize height?  Organize short people?  Say it now, say it loud!  I'm short, and I'm proud!  I identify as a short person, and I locate my intersectional identity in... whatever?

No.  I'm not even arguing that height should be added to the protected class list.  Damn, I hope this isn't a Titania McGrath kind of thing, where I write an absurdist post, and six months later, a bunch of SJWs do it for real.  Rather, I am pointing out the apolitical nature of height.  That says something.  What we choose to politicize and to organize and to identify is a choice.  An individual choice, and a collective choice.  And what we choose not to politicize includes variables that are often consequential, economically and socially.  Sometimes we choose not to politicize them in full knowledge of their existence, and sometimes simply because we never bother to think about them.

That doesn't mean they aren't choices, though.  And that doesn't mean they don't matter.  And think about the absurdity of politicizing every potential intersectional trait with effects like height.  What aren't you observing, by choosing to focus on what you do?

And all of these things should be as irrelevant as where you choose to break your egg.

But then again, some damned vegan would be offended by the whole premise of this, I guess.  Can't we all just come together and collectively detest vegans?  "Vegan" isn't a protected class either.  Thankfully.  If nothing else, in honor of Jonathan Swift, we can just call them "grass-fed."