Go ahead and point
Oy, another “someone said it therefore it’s true and you’re wrong to question it” from a philosopher. Yes, that one, of course.
It’s McKinnon by the way, he’s moved to a new account blah blah who cares.
The fact that the International Olympic Committee said it doesn’t make it true. The NRA says it’s a sacred right to have an unlimited number of guns of unlimited fire power, but that doesn’t make it true. People say things, organizations say things; the saying doesn’t magically make the said things true.
McKinnon himself would be the first to agree when it’s feminist women who don’t believe men can become women saying something. When women say we have a right to safety from men in locker rooms and similar places McKinnon doesn’t agree at all. When female athletes say they have a right to compete against other female people rather than male people McKinnon writes columns in the New York Times saying how wrong they are.
Also, as I’ve said before: the issue isn’t whether or not sport is a human right but whether male people competing against female people is a human right. Surely a philosopher ought to be able to keep that straight.
New account, okay, but a new name too? Is this some kind of Poison Ivy-esque super-villain role he’s identified himself into? If memory serves, wasn’t the original character a nice doctor who changed into her evil alter-ego after her enemies tried to kill her?
Something like that I guess, but I’m too bored by him to look into it. Pretentious git.
These people’s use of chibi anime girls as their avatars is super creepy. And I’m a lifelong anime fan.
Stop appropriating my subculture!
The link he posted is titled “Sport as a Human Right”, and appears to be a discussion about using sports as a tool to foster human rights. A brief look didn’t give me the impression the discussion claimed sports themselves were a human right.
I am reminded of an old joke in which a guy claimed something was true because it was written in the Bible, and to prove it he showed a note scribbled in a hotel Bible.
Feminists: Sexual dimorphism is a thing that exists, and it has ramifications in sports.
Trans trendies: skipping stones on a lake is a human right!
Feminists: ???? wtf are you talking about?
Makes about as much sense.
(Technically not a new account. You can change your twitter handle and keep all your followers, follows, etc., and that’s what McKinnon has done. Commonly people who do that grab their old handle with a new account to prevent someone else from taking it, and McKinnon has done that as well.)
McKinnon apparently for a while posted as Veronica McKinnon before transitioning to Veronica Ivy. Weird move for a world-renowned philosopher and athlete to change their twitter name.
So…do men have a right to compete against transwomen in sports? I think it ticks all the same boxes as transwomen competing against non-trans women, so it must be a human right.
Some of McKinnon’s brilliant pholosophical arguments look a lot like the arguments we’re supposed to believe, on authority, that after Special Training, certain male humans are able to magically transform wine and crackers into the Blood and Body of a God. They might still look like wine and crackers, BUT IT’S BLOOD AND FLESH DAMMIT, because SHUT UP, I SAID SO!
And, quite apart from the similar appeal to authority, the actual contents of many of the claims is eerily similar. Some Special male humans are magically able to become female humans. In fact, they’ve been female humans ALL ALONG! They might still look like male humans on the outside, BUT THEY’RE FEMALE DAMMIT, because SHUT UP I SAID SO! Note also that in both instances, bad actors are empowered by the supposed existence of these magical powers to take advantage of and victimize others. The possesion of this magical ability is unquestioned by authorities who are not themselves subject to it, but are willing to let others be.
Yes! Absolutely!
What concerns me more and more as I think about it is how members of the so-called skeptic/atheist movement don’t/can’t/won’t recognize the quasireligious features of this nonsense. It makes me think that they were just parroting (secular) shibboleths, just like the TRAs parrot catchphrases and slogans.
Thinking about it doesn’t make me feel good at all.
You mean, like the ones who spouted misogyny and defended sexual predators, then just claimed they were “skeptical” and “didn’t take things on anyone’s say so”? They just “followed the science”, and of course, there is always plenty of “science” out there to point to if you want to “prove” that lady brains are fuzzy and irrational, and male brains are hardwired for logic, reason, and mathematics. More of a “guy thing”, you know?
Probably a lot of overlap between that group and those who are willing to take it on someone’s say so that a bearded, muscular man with a penis is really a woman.