A man offers to explain it all yet again, for those of us who are just to thick to take it in the first several thousand times.
But the stories, struggles and triumphs of women? Not so much. Women are boring. Women are TERFs. Women are Karens. Women are to blame for most things, if you think about it.
Oh look, he almost talked about women for a second. It went by so fast you probably missed it. Unfortunately he called us “cis women” so he wasn’t really talking about most of us after all, since most of us don’t see ourselves as a subset of women. Anyway by tweet 6 he was back to saying trans women are the only women who really matter. Men do everything best, including womaning.
7 is great, isn’t it? Yeah yeah women need safety but put trans women first you selfish bitches. And he had to help set Suzanne Moore straight because who is some stupid woman to say what women are? Leave that to the clever men like Ben here.
Talk to trans people, he says. Don’t talk to women, talk to trans people.
Brilliant job of persuading us to support the Guardian so that it can continue to employ people like him.
Comments
12 responses to “He says please read it all”
“TWAW” is beginning to sound an awful lot like “Jesus is Lord — Read the Bible!” to me. It’s not even an attempt at an argument, it’s a bumper sticker.
It’s absolutely not an attempt at an argument – it’s an anti-argument, the shutting down of argument. It says “there is nothing to discuss, twaw period the end shut up.” It’s also a deliberate calculated cold-blooded insult to women, especially to the women who aren’t convinced by his ridiculous claims.
TWAW!
TWAW!
TWAW!
Polly wants a cracker!
Also of note is that he mentioned trans men once, in tweet 2, and then never again. A thread about sex, gender, and in particular womanhood, and the female sex is dropped as soon as it is mentioned.
I don’t want to go all Montoya on poor Ben Double-Barrels, but this:
Is not at all what he is doing here. It seems more like he is reciting a catechism than questioning anything.
Les sigh. This is just a little of what goes through my head when I see this sort of thread/post/article/etc.
What are women? What are men? Are you using the same senses of these words as the people you’re responding to? As law does? As science does? As literature does? As the totality of our species history does? If yes, can you show that? If not, how do you justify that, and what are the potential consequences that need to be navigated?
What does it mean to be non-binary? Does it entail that everyone who is not non-binary is binary? Is that not a binary? If non-binary means neither A nor B, what are the potential Cs? What distinguishes A from B, A from C, and B from C?
What does it mean for a term to be porous? If non-binary’s complement is binary, what would it mean to “live between” the dichotomy?
Are the proposed senses of these terms indisputable? On what grounds? Does that sort of justification apply to other terminology? How do we know when a term isn’t indisputable?
What does it mean for a gender to match? How do you know that this is true of most people? What does biology confer, gender-wise? What does society confer, gender-wise?
How does misogyny relate to gender? To sex? Does this understanding of misogyny result in things previously considered misogynist no longer being considered so? What of the reverse?
How does sexism relate to gender? To sex? Does this understanding of sexism result in things previously considered sexist no longer being considered so? What of the reverse?
How does patriarchy relate to gender? To sex? Does this understanding of patriarchy result in things previously considered patriarchal no longer being considered so? What of the reverse?
Do transwomen have concerns not shared by “cis” women? Do “cis” women have concerns not shared by transwomen? If the answer to either question is no, what does this entail with respect to biology? If, instead, the answer is yes to either, what are those concerns? Do transwomen have the right to speak about those concerns that are peculiar to them? Do “cis” women have the right to speak about those concerns that are peculiar to them? Does any of the aforementioned vocabulary make discussing those concerns difficult or unclear?
What does “all too often” mean? Why is the frequency with which “cis” women experience violence from men not mentioned? Is the omission to suggest that “cis” women suffer violence from men at an acceptable rate?
Does any of the aforementioned vocabulary make the source of violence and the nature of its threat unclear? If transmen are men, then do transmen threaten women? How do non-binary people fit into this analysis?
What do you mean by compassion? Is compassion an experience of empathy? A display of sympathy? Does it entail a particular sort of social or legal practice?
What do you mean by honored? Do honoring and compassion have any entailments about what sort of positions are permissible in the debate you desire? Do they preclude certain conclusions about transition timing?
What do you mean by the fact of transwomen’s existence? Does it mean that a person labeled as trans exists? Does it mean that a person labeled as trans is all the things that the label denotes? Does this reasoning apply elsewhere? Is it possible for a label to denote logically impossible things? Is it possible for a label to denote empirically impossible things? How do we determine which labels those are? Is it possible for a label to be wrongly applied? How do we know when that happens? When a label is wrongly applied to something, does that thing exist?
In your terms, to what class of people is Moore referring when she says “women’s rights”? Is Moore using the same sense of women as you? If not, how can you restate her position or argument in your terms? How can you restate your argument in her terms? Are these restatements equivalent in meaning?
Is feeling safe the most appropriate goal? Why a feeling of safety over the fact of safety? Would feeling safe make us safe?
Is a universal feeling of safety is attainable? If it is, how? If it isn’t, what level of feeling safe is acceptable?
What does it mean to understand the reality of their identities? Does this mean “understand that their identities are real”? Is this any different from accepting what they say to be true? Is it possible to approach the discussion in good faith and yet disagree on whether a transperson’s claim are true? If not, in what sense is there a discussion or debate? Is your belief potentially falsifiable or defeasible? What sort of argument, evidence, or experience would be sufficient to reduce your confidence in your belief?
If you do not have all the answers, does that mean that some of the answers you do not know might be incompatible with a belief you currently hold? Would such an answer mean that the question isn’t right?
When we say “trans women are men”, we are erasing their identity, we are refusing to validate their choices, and we are committing acts that will lead them to self harm and suicide.
Yet it is quite acceptable to say:
God believers are deluded, there is no heaven or hell, let alone god(s).
Anorexics are ill and need medical care and counseling. Same with Bulimics.
There’s a guy works down the chip shop swears he’s Elvis, but he’s a liar.
Flat Earthers are crazy.
Republicans only care about denying women health care.
Democrats only want to tax and spend.
Sure, in each of the above cases there will be pushback, but why is trans the only one that is so damned needy all the time?
BBT, in fewer words: “The debate should continue, but here’s the conclusion you must arrive at.”
[…] a comment by Nullius in Verba on He says please read it […]
Uh oh. he slipped when he mentioned gender
That almost sounds as if he believes in biology. He’ll be on the next train to the Gulag.
Actually, I have been dumped on repeatedly for saying just such a thing about my own anorexia. Over and over. “Body shaming”. “Ableist” (I was the one disabled by it, but I’m being ableist – WTF? I was on the road toward death, but I’m not supposed to say that).
The woke are generally a difficult bunch to talk to.
BBT has clearly missed his vocation. He should have been a mediaeval lord. Or maybe Sheriff of Nottingham.
Actually, come to think of it, that job might just be vacant. Worth a look, surely.