I'm a world expert on being talked over, lied about and defined by misogynists, on being instructed to centre everyone but my own demographic in my activism and on being denied credit for my own achievements by envious men. In other words, I'm a woman. https://t.co/CN8VZH3z0S
“In other words, I’m a woman”. Yes, and one who has every right to defend feminism. “Dominating” the so called “public debate”, if that’s what you want to call trans activism, is not what she’s doing. Again, here’s an ignoramus who doesn’t have a clue what her position is, or what she even said. Surely a keen reply, but this too, unfortunately, will be ignored or not understood (or both) by the TRA blatherers.
And again, I just can’t get behind the idea that only people who are X can talk about subjects relating to X-ness, and furthermore cannot disagree about X-ness with those who are X. That seems just … It presumes that every statement about X-ness is veridical if-and-only-if uttered by an X person*, and that non-X people can only receive knowledge about X-ness through X people, who, like the prophets of any supernatural deity, have special access to Truth through revelation.
It’s fucked up, methinks, that the noble impulse to incorporate all relevant perspectives is cynically exploited as a tool of social realpolitik.
—-
* Of course, this has been further refined to be “approved X person”. If you’re a transwoman like Debbie Hayton or Blaire White or a transman like Buck Angel, and you speak out against the anti-woman, anti-science bullshit, then you’re demonstrating internalized transphobia, which invalidates your perspective. You transphobe.
The admonition to shut up and listen to the members of the oppressed group is a valid one, but it only works when dealing with a non-oppressed group (to-wit, straight white men, preferably but not exclusively middle-class and up). When two oppressed groups are in conflict, however, there must be an exchange of ideas and debate (and preferably, dialogue), or else you end up with one group being further oppressed.
I do think that actual trans folks suffer oppression (as opposed to the special snowflakes who like to don their trans identity like a fashionable cape they can ditch when it becomes inconvenient, but then re-wrap themselves in the moment it might be useful), because they are part of the larger oppressed group of neurologically atypical individuals–and our society sucks hard for folks with such conditions. But that oppression is practiced almost exclusively by men, usually motivated by homophobia and gay panic.
Ideally, yes, there would be an alliance between oppressed peoples in order to break the system down and end oppression for all. If you tell me that trans folks need protection for jobs and housing, I’ll agree. If anti-trans violence is to be made a hate crime, sign me up. If you tell me that trans people need accommodations–in prisons, sports, bathrooms/locker rooms and emergency housing–I’m inclined to listen (especially when it comes to situations of potential violence). But those accommodations must NOT be stolen from women, who have fought too long and hard to gain them in the first place. Instead, they should be, whenever possible, created by carving out space from the dominant group (again, SWMs). Build additional shelters that can accommodate trans folk; create trans-safe prisons; give trans athletes an opportunity compete against one another. Really, my fellow pallid phallus poltroons and I can spare it. No need to take from women (or for that matter, people of color, homosexuals, etc.).
Yes, and presumably why so many people are urging others not to read Rowling’s arguments. How many times have you seen someone dismissing them as “just the same old debunked TERF bollocks”?
It’s strange that on every other topic throughout history people(*) have devoted days and days of their time to debunking the same old arguments again and again wherever and whenever they pop up, but on this one issue it seems enough to just tell people it’s all thoroughly debunked, take my word for it, no need to read it, no need for me to point to the rebuttal…
Oh yes, “I’ll spare you the trauma of reading the mean old TERF’s words…” So desperate not to let anyone see that her arguments are even-handed and reasonable.
The TRAs have been irritatingly successful at shorthanding any and all pushback against their slate of demands into transphobia, then referring to “transphobes” without further explanation needed. I do sense some over-reaching by virtue of living in a bubble mentality though. Yesterday I saw the term “mother” casually referred to as “gender essentialist and transphobic” in a breezy, surely there’s nothing controversial here way, and I… I’m sensing hubris. Crossed fingers.
Any public statement made by Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, or any other male billionaire:
“Oooh, did you hear what [insert name] had to say about [subject totally unrelated to his expertise]? I think he should run for President!”
Any public statement made by a female billionaire:
“STFU, this isn’t your field! God, how arrogant are you?”
“In other words, I’m a woman”. Yes, and one who has every right to defend feminism. “Dominating” the so called “public debate”, if that’s what you want to call trans activism, is not what she’s doing. Again, here’s an ignoramus who doesn’t have a clue what her position is, or what she even said. Surely a keen reply, but this too, unfortunately, will be ignored or not understood (or both) by the TRA blatherers.
And again, I just can’t get behind the idea that only people who are X can talk about subjects relating to X-ness, and furthermore cannot disagree about X-ness with those who are X. That seems just … It presumes that every statement about X-ness is veridical if-and-only-if uttered by an X person*, and that non-X people can only receive knowledge about X-ness through X people, who, like the prophets of any supernatural deity, have special access to Truth through revelation.
It’s fucked up, methinks, that the noble impulse to incorporate all relevant perspectives is cynically exploited as a tool of social realpolitik.
—-
* Of course, this has been further refined to be “approved X person”. If you’re a transwoman like Debbie Hayton or Blaire White or a transman like Buck Angel, and you speak out against the anti-woman, anti-science bullshit, then you’re demonstrating internalized transphobia, which invalidates your perspective. You transphobe.
Nellius, are you sure you’re qualified to talk about who can talk about what? ;)
Every tweet you post of J. K. Rowling’s just makes me admire her more.
twiliter: …
…
WHARGARBL!!!!1!
Do do do, de da da da, is all I want to say to you. (with apologies) ;)
The admonition to shut up and listen to the members of the oppressed group is a valid one, but it only works when dealing with a non-oppressed group (to-wit, straight white men, preferably but not exclusively middle-class and up). When two oppressed groups are in conflict, however, there must be an exchange of ideas and debate (and preferably, dialogue), or else you end up with one group being further oppressed.
I do think that actual trans folks suffer oppression (as opposed to the special snowflakes who like to don their trans identity like a fashionable cape they can ditch when it becomes inconvenient, but then re-wrap themselves in the moment it might be useful), because they are part of the larger oppressed group of neurologically atypical individuals–and our society sucks hard for folks with such conditions. But that oppression is practiced almost exclusively by men, usually motivated by homophobia and gay panic.
Ideally, yes, there would be an alliance between oppressed peoples in order to break the system down and end oppression for all. If you tell me that trans folks need protection for jobs and housing, I’ll agree. If anti-trans violence is to be made a hate crime, sign me up. If you tell me that trans people need accommodations–in prisons, sports, bathrooms/locker rooms and emergency housing–I’m inclined to listen (especially when it comes to situations of potential violence). But those accommodations must NOT be stolen from women, who have fought too long and hard to gain them in the first place. Instead, they should be, whenever possible, created by carving out space from the dominant group (again, SWMs). Build additional shelters that can accommodate trans folk; create trans-safe prisons; give trans athletes an opportunity compete against one another. Really, my fellow pallid phallus poltroons and I can spare it. No need to take from women (or for that matter, people of color, homosexuals, etc.).
[…] a comment by Freemage on On being instructed to center everyone […]
The fact that she is so skilled at effectively communicating her point is of course why it’s so urgent that she be cancelled.
AHF:
Yes, and presumably why so many people are urging others not to read Rowling’s arguments. How many times have you seen someone dismissing them as “just the same old debunked TERF bollocks”?
It’s strange that on every other topic throughout history people(*) have devoted days and days of their time to debunking the same old arguments again and again wherever and whenever they pop up, but on this one issue it seems enough to just tell people it’s all thoroughly debunked, take my word for it, no need to read it, no need for me to point to the rebuttal…
(*) Yeah, all right, me.
latsot:
Oh yes, “I’ll spare you the trauma of reading the mean old TERF’s words…” So desperate not to let anyone see that her arguments are even-handed and reasonable.
The TRAs have been irritatingly successful at shorthanding any and all pushback against their slate of demands into transphobia, then referring to “transphobes” without further explanation needed. I do sense some over-reaching by virtue of living in a bubble mentality though. Yesterday I saw the term “mother” casually referred to as “gender essentialist and transphobic” in a breezy, surely there’s nothing controversial here way, and I… I’m sensing hubris. Crossed fingers.