Trans epistemology:
In trans epistemology, statements that trans women who are convicted of violent crime will be barred from female prisons = statements that trans women are male predators. In trans epistemology the limiting clause “who are convicted of violent crime” becomes invisible, so that the statement becomes simply “trans women will be barred from female prisons.” Mind you, that is what ought to happen, but it’s not what the sentence Willoughby is fulminating about says. The sentence says one thing, and Willoughby claims it says quite another thing. That’s trans epistemology.
Comments
8 responses to “In your own words”
Coverage of an issue seems to equal inciting hatred towards some of the people affected by that issue, according to Willoughby.
Side note: the Isla Bryson conviction is being covered by mainstream UK media.
https://www.itv.com/news/2023-02-28/trans-rapist-isla-bryson-jailed-for-eight-years
Another crack in the wall? I don’t remember the Karen White case (for example) getting any mainstream coverage.
Stylish reporting: it’s conspicuous that the only pronoun in the whole article is safely inside quotation marks as reported direct speech where it is unequivocally protected by privilege.
That is, there are no she or he pronouns referring to Bryson – there are lots of other pronouns. The judge scattered them like confetti.
But there is a LOT of repetition of “Bryson” where normally there would be a “he”.
I do note that the TalkTV post IW is responding to includes the line “Sex Matters’ Helen Joyce says no trans women should be jailed with women”. It is possible that this bit is what he is responding to as “pitching trans women as male predators”.
Probably is, still wrong, in that classic “add a lot of assumptions that aren’t there in the statement” way that trans propagandists love to do. Saying “no trans woman should be jailed with women” isn’t saying “because they are predators.” There are abundant reasons no trans woman should be jailed with women.
I suppose that’s one reason I despise this “activism” so much – its heavy reliance on this kind of lying by omission, lying by addition, lying by misrepresentation, lying by fantasy-quoting, and the like. I have a visceral hatred of sloppy and/or deceptive discourse.
I get the distinct impression that Jonathan sees himself the same way that Bill Donohue of the Catholic League saw himself, as the muckraker for all things that could possibly be seen as an attack on his ideology/religion, and good at getting airtime for it.
Everything he sees needs a reaction.
It doesn’t matter that women get death or rape threats, thoe are not in his field of view, except if talking about those threats make TAs look bad.
Excellent analogy.