Happy pride day punch a terf
Stonewall is having a rough day.
Also as that Telegraph article mentioned, Channel 4 has also dropped Stonewall.
A glimmer of light at last.
Tip Jar
Stonewall is having a rough day.
Also as that Telegraph article mentioned, Channel 4 has also dropped Stonewall.
A glimmer of light at last.
Merry Christmas, kill a Jew!
Happy Fourth of July, lynch a Black person!
Happy Pride, punch a
TERFwoman!Nothing new under the sun.
Perhaps I should have written “kike” and the n-word (maybe even in full), in strikeout, before the words “Jew” and “Black person”, just as I did for “woman”.
(Warning: not new information for many here.) I really do think that these people have somehow reconceptualized words like lesbian from descriptions to memberships. For example, atheist as a description is a word that applies to someone who does not believe in any gods. Believe in no gods? Atheist. Believe in at least one god? Not an atheist. As a membership term, it applies to someone who is part of the group “atheists”. Thus, if one is permitted entry into the group, one is an atheist. No other criteria apply, and this is how we get to normative notions of inclusion and exclusion, of “policing” who “can be” a woman. After all, group membership is political. Admittance or rejection is an exercise of power.
This view explains why someone would feel (violently) confident in proclaiming, “If someone walked up to me and said, ‘Lesbians can’t be attracted to men,’ they’d deserve a brick to the teeth, because that’s a TERF.” Lesbian isn’t acting as a description of reality based on conformation to a definition. Rather, it is acting as a name for a group—or community, if we use the trendy language—which one can join or be included in.
Does this sound like Critical Theory plus Foucault? Why, yes. Yes, it does.
I can’t help noticing that the pro-sanity articles referenced on here lately have been from the Mail and the Telegraph. The Mail and Telegraph? I, am on the same team as them?
Should I be killing myself? Once upon I would expect the Guardian and maybe the Indie to be where I’d go to feel at home but no more.
I’m fairly certain that most of the Mail and telegraph output isn’t me, but that is precisely the problem; without changing my views and principles I suddenly appear to be homeless politically speaking.
@Nullius #3
I like the framing of “membership”; it fits well. It’s so important to be “queer”, for instance, because it’s a membership in a club, you don’t want to be left out of the club.
I also think of these terms as “identities” that are expected to be immutable, and thus it becomes quite traumatic to consider the possibility that a label (description) no longer applies. They are more attached to the label than to the characteristic it describes, perhaps.
Re the OP, can they not see that they are advocating violence? This is astounding to me, how casually they can suggest physical attacks against their opponents. What is it supposed to be, funny? Sacha Baron Cohen did a song, “Throw the Jews Down the Well”, that was well received in some little dive in the South. It’s a catchy song with lyrics just as awful as you can imagine, and the audience was cheerfully singing along. Are these “kick a terf in the teeth” people just singing a cheerful refrain without thinking about what they are actually saying? It’s bizarre to me.
[…] a comment by Nullius in Verba on Happy pride day punch a […]
It’s not that these trans activists aren’t thinking about what they’re saying; they think this is what others want to hear. I think some of it is performative, to show that they’re in with the group, talking tough under the protection of anonymity. They have let other people think for them. They have willingly, and uncritically accepted other people’s prononucements on who is Good and who is Bad. Unfortunately, I think many of them could easily escalate to physical violence, given the wrong circumstances, and a supporting audience. Because they have been told, over and over, that TERFs are so unspeakably, inhumanly evil, these TAs would see any violence used against TERFs as righteous and justified.
Yes I’m less surprised by the violent language, and I think they mostly do mean it literally. I think one reason I’m less surprised is because I saw so much of it (directed at me as well as other women) in the wake of Elevatorgate. Another reason I’m less surprised is because it’s not as if violence against women is rare. Lots of men do think women deserve violence and that they’re entitled to administer it.
And not only entitled to administer it, but required if they wish to maintain their manhood.
of course it is so odd that while they demand redefinition as “women” while retaining all of the rights and privileges “due” to them as MEN. That is what is amazing.
Morality is no longer judged by one’s deeds, but by what group one identifies into.
This is why the Overton Window is now a fucking panopticon.
latslot; Excellent point. Victory in the Victimhood Olympics brings power and prestige.
Sackbut
This is exactly it, and also exactly why arguing with them on from a perspective of “this word does/doesn’t apply” gets nowhere. What they want is the word, not the traits on which it depends.
latsot:
Well said. From my perspective, judging morality by one’s group membership at all rather than deeds is questionalble. It’s not always wrong, but it’s incorrect often enough that it should give us pause.
iknklast:
I interrupted limited time with family this past weekend to give an introductory dog training lesson to a guy who exhibited this attitude vis-a-vis his 8-month-old GSD. “Beat his ass” was the phrase that activated my canine protection algorithms. This manhood preserving behavior (or posturing at the behavior) is bullshit.