Guest post: Because clear definitions are easily communicated
Originally a comment by Nullius in Verba on A strange union.
If we were to replace trans exclusionary with racist, misogynistic or antisemitic would we be expected to define every word that would be included?
Expected to define each word that would be considered racist? No. Expected to define the list itself of words to be proscribed, as opposed to the words on that list? Yes, absolutely. Expected to be able to provide a coherent definition of racism consistent with common usage? You’d better goddamn believe it. If you’re going to curtail fundamental liberties like speech, then you are obliged to provide a full account of who, what, when, where, and why. I can define racism, sexism, misogyny, antisemitism, and homophobia in clear terms. I can define the extent and bounds of behavioral restriction I believe appropriate for any given context. It should be easy, and you should welcome the opportunity to clearly establish what constitutes transphobic behavior.
But y’all mah’f-kz won’t do that, because you can’t do that. You can’t, because your ideology is nonsensical, apophatic, self-justifying, self-negating, utterly incoherent bullshit. You can’t, because you know that definitions are inherently limiting, and having a fixed definition would mean being unable to deploy conflicting ones in rhetoric. You can’t, because clear definitions are easily communicated, and you can’t let normal people get a clear picture of your ideology’s tenets.
You can’t, because you’re lying liars who lie. God damn, this “I shouldn’t have to define my terms” routine is seriously craven.
I do remember that “racism” suddenly became a term no longer consistent with common usage.
One wanted to point out that a white person confronted by people of color prejudiced against white people was nearly not effected by that as a black person confronted by white people prejudiced against people of color. That is a fair point.
Unfortunately they choose to call this imbalance “racism” while the common usage was to call the prejudice, “racism”. So those who wanted to talk about this imbalance said things like only white people could act racist, meaning something like the above, but of course the others understood that as being told only white people could be prejudiced.
Especially since we have already seen plenty of examples of the word being used to denote anything from the Holocaust to criticism of ideas such as these.
What bothers me (well, among the many things that bother me) is how accusations of racism turn the conversation from “is XYZ harmful” or “is XYZ factually correct” to whether XYZ is actually racist. That is, it becomes all about whether the label applies, not any other concerns or issues. XYZ could be a person or a statement or a movie or a book, the same mechanism applies.
Why is gender critical feminism seemingly more popular, organized, and effective in Great Britain than the United States? One explanation I came across pointed out that racism in the US had been much more virulent & entrenched, and this effected the way transgender rights were now framed and approached. Being called a “racist” — or being compared to a racist — was much more incendiary in a country which fought a civil war over it. Could be.
I first encountered transgender doctrine on websites which emphasized science and skepticism. Vague, slippery, emotion-laden terms were considered a hallmark of pseudoscience, religion, and woo. They were a “tell,” a quick giveaway that the ideology which required them lacked rigor, coherency, and plausibility. And going after them was always an acceptable line of attack against bad ideas.
I was first puzzled, and then astonished, when it became clear that this reasonable heuristic was being thrown out by so many of the people who had staunchly defended it. Transgender ideology was different. It was too complicated for clarity. The trans folx were too vulnerable to treat their lives and existence as an “intellectual exercise.” Terms aren’t important.
Yes they are. Excellent comment by NIV.
Sastra @4: “Why is gender critical feminism seemingly more popular, organized, and effective in Great Britain than the United States?”
It seems to me to be a combination of:
(1) At least in terms of legislation, trans activism has progressed farther, faster, in the UK, so there was more to “push back” against.
(2) Feminism in general stronger/more accepted in the UK?
(3) The strong, loud, and politically powerful social conservative faction in the U.S. tends to drown out feminist arguments.
And it also gives the trans advocates a stick to beat GC feminists with. If we agree even in part with the conservatives on this issue, we agree with them everywhere! We are foaming at the mouth conservatives! We are Tucker Carlson!
iknklast,
Yes, there’s definitely a guilt-by-association argument being abused. I also think that gender critical folks need to watch out for the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend thinking, though.
Oh, I never think the enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless I have reason to believe he/she/it is my friend. I can agree with a conservative pundit on one view, and often not for the same reason, without thinking they are someone I can cozy up to and work with on a lot of other things. I just think we need more nuanced thinking, without assuming if it brands itself “left” it is automatically good. I don’t think anyone here does that, but I do see a lot of “well, if Jonah Goldberg thinks it, it must be wrong!” Except…Jonah Goldberg is almost as anti-Trump as I am. That doesn’t mean I agree with him about everything.
This’s an interesting point. An accusation of racism certainly does distract from questions of harm and veridicality. Maybe that’s partly because people have the sense that if something or someone is racist, then that thing or person is harmful or wrong on all counts. (Now that I think about it, it’s probably related to splitting.) Racism constitutes a harm unto itself. “What’s the harm?” is answered with, “It’s racist.” Likewise with correctness. Once the accusation of racism has been made, it must be addressed, because it overrides everything else.
There was a case where a teacher was leading a class discussion about forbidden words and how they gecam forbidden. She vocalized the “n word” as a example. Note she did not use the word as an epithet or direct it at anyone. Nonetheless, so elf her students were TRAUMATIZED!!!!! And she was fired. This is the same school district that dawdle and spent time investigating a teacher who received outright racist harrassment to the point she had to quit in self defense. Who would ever choose to be a teacher these days?