Who chooses
Also –
That last sentence in particular – I wonder about it. It’s typical enough, and I wonder about it. She “chooses her trans siblings every second of every day over others.” Why? It’s typical in the prioritization, and I wonder why it is. It implies that trans people are the most oppressed, the most in need of friends and allies and support of all kinds, the most deserving of solidarity. Why? Why is that? Why such intensification, such first-putting, such passion?
It’s not a trick question; I have no idea what the answer is. I don’t understand it. There are many millions of people in this world in far more dire straits than trans people in the UK and the US – refugees fleeing gang violence, famine victims, Uighurs being tormented in camps in China, girls subject to violence and forced marriage in all too many places, people battling floods or droughts, workers in chicken plants in South Dakota, and on and on. Being trans does not seem as desperate as any of that, does it?Judging by the Twitter activists, for a lot of people it’s just a “lifestyle choice,” and a way to annoy the parents.
Why does anyone “choose” them over everyone else?
It’s an enigma.
Similar to “god is great”, “my country, right or wrong” – I see it as an expression of privilege and sense of entitlement (and cluelessness).
Refugees, rape victims, and people suffering from systematic oppression are usually viewed as adults — strong people brought down by circumstance, but still mentally intact. I wonder if the protective instinct is triggered more by weak people who never had a chance to grow the way they ‘should have.’ At least some of the rhetoric surrounding transgender individuals looks to me like it infantalizes them. They missed out on a normal childhood, people ignore or belittle them, they’re easily triggered, they require reassurance and validation, they can’t be expected to behave with civility, if they don’t get what they want they’ll want to kill themselves. It’s the vulnerability of a small child.
This is a characteristic they share with Trump supporters. We are also constantly told we must reach out to them, not hurt their feelings, they are tired of not getting their way, etc. Infantilization seems to be the rage of the time.
I think it’s quite simple, really. All of the genuinely worthy causes require actual effort to support properly, while trans activism requires little more than logging onto Twitter and firing off a slogan or two – the ideal cause for the terminally bone-idle. Plus, there’s the occasional march to attend, and unlike marches and protests in support of real-world oppressed and victimised people, attending trans events means looking faaabulous, lots of attention from equally fabulous trans ‘siblings’, and being seen to be awfully woke. Oh, and being told how terribly brave one is. Those other events? Too drab, terrible clothes, boring placards, miserable people, boring chants, no praise: simply not worth the effort, dahling.
Real activism means making it about others, trans activism is all about the individual activist. Why do ‘them’ when one can do ‘mememememe’?
Virtue has always been measured in religion (and quasi-religion) by one’s willingness to sacrifice for the advancement thereof. Martyrdom is the ur-example, but Abraham is only a half-step behind, and it’s not that far to self-flagellation, voluntary poverty, alms, servitude, and all the rest. These (post)modern movements exploit the impulse toward altruism, driving it onward with stick (cancellation) and carrot (social recognition of virtue).
When I encounter the phrase “trans siblings” I want to throw up. It’s just so corny, so twee, so far from reality. Trans people are obviously not a family, but unrelated people with different backgrounds, life stories and pathways towards transness. Some of them seem to be admirable human beings, while others are people I would want nothing to do with, because they would offer nothing but trouble.
I’ve never actually knowingly met a trans person in real life, though I’ve seen a few around. I suspect I’m not unusual in this; indeed I suspect the majority of the UK population is in the same position, and most of them have no idea that this rumpus is happening.
I’d be fascinated to know the story behind Prof Stock’s OBE. These things don’t come from nowhere. A group of her professional colleagues presumably put together a very strong citation for her, and submitted it to the Honours and Appointments Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. There it would have been sifted and submitted to the Education Committee (a group of the honours-bearing Great and Good, chaired by Sir Daniel Moynihan). Generally, disputes over the worthiness of recipients are seen as something to be avoided. Were the Committee aware of the controversy the award would cause? If so, they’re one part of the apparat that certainly hasn’t been Stonewalled.
Please, Richard, it’s “trans folk”.
Or is it “transfolk”, I can never remember whether spaces are good or evil.
@latsot
Spaces are evil, because we must believe that a trans woman is a woman who just happens to be trans, in the same way that other women happen to be tall or deaf or Jewish. This rhetorical trick doesn’t function nearly as well if we treat “transwoman” as a compound noun—one that invites dangerous comparisons with other compound nouns such as “seahorse,” “jellyfish,” and “hotdog.”
It’s really quite simple: spaces are just fine for trans folk. They’re OK for women as well, as long as any man who claims to be a woman can use them.
Tut – it’s a RULE. Breaking the rule is transphobic and unforgivable. It’s trans women. Omitting the space is grounds for cancellation.
Athel Cornish-Bowden:
I’ll set ’em up, you knock ’em down ;)
I guess none of you have got the memo that the only acceptable word is now “folx”. Apparently that’s somehow more inclusive of the non-folk that are excluded and marginalized by people referring to “folk”.