Drawing criticism

Written by

Ophelia Benson

in

Typical Pink News way of framing “he said a thing we don’t like”:

Richard Dawkins drew criticism Saturday (10 April) for a provocative tweet that compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal.

No he didn’t draw criticism; people decided to criticise him.

On Saturday morning, an entire minute after tweeting about the late Prince Phillip’s top hat, the evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist abruptly gave his take on trans lives that absolutely nobody asked for.

Remind me – how does Twitter work, again? You’re supposed to wait for someone to ask you a question before you tweet? You mustn’t tweet about subject X unless someone asks you to? Have I got that right?

Dawkins compared trans folk to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who appropriated a Black identity while pursuing Black activism and academia.

Note the “folk.” Why folk? Why is it so often folk? What is that?

Also what is it to “pursue academia”?

But to the point, yes, he compared people who say they are a sex they are not to Dolezal’s saying she’s Black when she’s not. There are core similarities, you see.

Dolezal once likened herself to trans people. At the time, her words were rebutted by the psychologist and author Guilaine Kinouani, who told BBC Newsnight: “Comparing [being trans] with trans-racialism is a fallacy. It’s a false equivalency, which in my mind doesn’t advance our understanding of race, of transgender issues, neither of Black womanhood. [She’s a] white woman who’s quite oblivious to the fact that Black women’s experiences and bodies have been appropriated.”

Wo, well that’s us told!

Kidding. What a bizarre item to choose to support the case you’re trying to make. “This one person said that’s false.” Not really a conversation-stopper!

Similarly, Dawkins’ comment quickly became a lightning rod for criticism, with trans folk and allies responding with frustration and exhaustion.

Folk again, and passive-aggressive imputation of guilt again. Dawkins’s tweet didn’t “become a lightning rod”; some people chose to respond to it. I’ve done some responding to Dawkins myself in the distant past, but I don’t think I called him a lightning rod.

His argument has long been debunked by, you know, science and the very advocacy group for “reason and science” Dawkins founded.

That part is true.

Comments

8 responses to “Drawing criticism”

  1. Nullius in Verba Avatar
    Nullius in Verba

    Note the “folk.” Why folk? Why is it so often folk? What is that?

    I’ve often wondered the same.

    One of the more confusing quirks of language in the activism of Critical Social Justice is their adoption of the term “folks” to stand in place of “people” or terms meant to address people in a more inclusive way.

    …

    Within queer Theory, the use of the word “folks” seems to have arisen in the effort to find a suitable gender-neutral term that replaces the colloquial gender-neutral use of the word “guys” (see also, impact versus intent, gender, and to gender). So, “hey guys” gets replaced by “hey folks.” (Theory regards the concept of a gender-neutral use of the word “guys” as by-definition impossible and sees even the notion that such a thing as possible as proof of sexist assumptions being baked into language – see also, phallogocentrism and deconstruction.) “Folks” would similarly serve to replace “ladies and gentlemen,” which implies a sex and/or gender binary (see also, man, woman, and violence of categorization). Such uses of language are considered profoundly problematic by gender studies and queer Theory. This is why the word “folks” in this context so often appears as “queer folks” or “non-binary folks,” which avoids calling the first group “queers,” which is still a slur, while signaling an intentional use of gender-neutral language. This is seen as more inclusive.

    Being that queer Theory is what it is, it even classifies “folks” as being inherently gendered, despite being gender neutral and is therefore replaced by “folx.” This claim makes no sense in everyday logic but has two explanations within queer-Theoretic logic (see also, queering). One, which almost makes sense, is that the term for “folks” in languages other than English is sometimes a gendered word (for example, “la gente” in Spanish is gendered feminine). As “folx” isn’t a real word in any language, including Esperanto, it also can be defined to be ungendered (or anti-gendered, more accurately) in all languages. The other, which makes no etymological sense in reality but perfect sense in the completely political logic of Theory, is that “folx” signals commitment to this rejection of any possibility of gendered language at all, i.e., it is a wholly political use of language that actively signals maximal inclusivity. In this regard, it is very similar to other linguistic projects such as “womxn” and “Latinx,” which seek to remove the “man” from “woman” in the first case (see also, womyn) and to ungender (or anti-gender) Latino/Latina (see also, phallogocentrism, Derridean, and deconstruction).

    …

    It’s almost impossible not to see this alternative spelling [folx] as both unnecessary and insane. Indeed, it is both. As can be read in the example provided below, one of the reasons that “folks” is not considered gender–inclusive enough is because the wrong kinds of activists (feminists – namely “trans-exclusionary radical feminists”) have started using “folks” in keeping with standard Critical Social Justice usage, so the right kinds of activists need an alternative term that distinguishes them from the more problematic activists (see also, non-consensual co-platforming).

    (emphasis mine)

    From James Lindsay’s occasionally amusing Social Justice Encyclopedia entries on Folks and Folx.

  2. Sackbut Avatar
    Sackbut

    It took me a minute to parse that last tweet. I’m used to seeing “shout out” as a positive acknowledgement, like “shout out to all people from Dillersville, my hometown!” or “Shout out to the author of the novel, without whom this film would not exist!” Not “Let me have the attention of a bunch of people I’m going to disagree with or criticize”. I see it’s the latter in this tweet, now.

  3. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Comparing [being trans] with trans-racialism is a fallacy. It’s a false equivalency, which in my mind doesn’t advance our understanding of race, of transgender issues, neither of Black womanhood. [She’s a] white woman who’s quite oblivious to the fact that Black women’s experiences and bodies have been appropriated.

    This is a rebuttal? It sounds like a playground rebuttal: “My momma said!”

    As for science rejecting the idea of two sexes, all I have to say is WTF? No, though there are some scientists that appear to believe that. Against the evidence. Against reason. Against…well, science. Yes, there are subtle differences within the sexes, and overlap of characteristics, and intersex, and ambiguity in secondary sexual characteristics. None of those things demonstrates that there are not sexes, only that living beings are complex and messy.

  4. GW Avatar
    GW

    “folx” signals commitment to this rejection of any possibility of gendered language at all

    Or perhaps commitment to a rejection of any possibility of language at all. :-)

  5. Sackbut Avatar
    Sackbut

    [She’s a] white woman who’s quite oblivious to the fact that Black women’s experiences and bodies have been appropriated.

    And this is different from “a man who’s quite oblivious to the fact that women’s experiences and bodies have been appropriated” how?

    To be sure, Dolezal was a well respected leader in the NAACP, and fought for the cause of Black men and women. She isn’t actually Black, but I’m convinced she thinks she is, and it shouldn’t really matter much (except of course for it not being true); there are white people working in the NAACP. The TIMs working as hard for the rights of women are difficult to find. (There are some good examples we all know, but I don’t think it’s widespread.)

  6. Kristjan Avatar
    Kristjan

    Now if only they could imagine the frustration and exhaustion of women fighting for their rights.

  7. John the Drunkard Avatar
    John the Drunkard

    Have any trans-fans done more than declare that the Dolezal comparison is a thought crime?

    If you can’t even attempt to support the claim, you’re in more epistemic trouble than you should feel comfortable with.

    [She’s a] (man) who’s quite oblivious to the fact that women’s experiences and bodies have been appropriated.

    Has there been any response other than ‘burn the witch!’

  8. iknklast Avatar
    iknklast

    Plus, I’m not aware of Dolezal threatening people who say she is not black with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire, or telling them to die in a grease fire. No one is shouting TBAB and insisting on enforcement. While I’m on the subject, I would just like to remind you that TOAO.

More posts