It’s quite literally in there
At 2 W. State St. there lies a familiar Athens business that is the subject of current controversy: Artifacts Gallery. Some social media posts encourage a boycott of Artifacts Gallery and its owner, Amy Mangano, for accusations of transphobia. A protest against Mangano and the shop is scheduled for Saturday at 10:30 a.m.
Rylee Lee, a junior studying music education, helped organize the protest, and said it was sparked by social media posts about new signage on the door of Artifacts Gallery. From there, Lee joined forces with Kaycie Tillis, a sophomore studying psychology, to begin organizing a protest against the shop. The new signs and banners on the front door include messages like “humans can’t change sex” and “say no to men in women’s sports.”
So humans can change sex? Men should be in women’s sports? Kids today; I tell you what.
Lee said the protest is important to support transgender individuals in Athens and to demonstrate Mangano’s verbiage is not something Lee and other protesters agree with.
“T is for trans,” Lee said. “You can’t have LGBT without the T. It’s quite literally in there.”
Bahahahahahahaha well spotted. You also can’t have ZQr9& without the &. It’s quite literally in there.
Here’s a helpful tip though: you can have LGB without the T, because it’s quite literally not in there.
H/t Sackbut
If this movement had any self-awareness at all it would see this protest for the own goal that it is. Neither of these slogans says anything about “trans” or “gender.” They’ve brought that in themselves, unbidden. This pushback helps to delineate the hidden, unspoken, and unspeakable premises in the “logic” of the finding of “transphobia” in statements that aren’t about “trans.” It’s like having the decryption key to the simplistic secret decoder ring through which they run all statements that they think should centre them, but don’t.
Trans activists violently opposing women discussing their sex-based rights or defending their single-sex spaces explodes the claim that there is “no conflict” between women’s rights and trans “rights.” In a pig’s eye. If there was no conflict, and if they had confidence in the justice of their cause and position, they’d leave women in peace to talk about these things. But they know that sex is the concept they must dilute or destroy in order to implement their agenda. They want to replace sex with gender, and will use confusion of the two to get what they want. Trans activists, when it has suited them tactically, have berated feminists for allegedly conflating “sex” with “gender.” “They’re completely different! How silly of you. Nobody is trying to erase sex!” Yet to find something “anti-trans” in the simple statement of fact that humans can’t change sex requires exactly that conflation. If they believed that gender is completely different, they wouldn’t find this statement threatening. But denying that humans can change sex torpedoes the whole idea that men can be women. “Gender identity” should have no bearing whatsoever on who gets to use women’s single sex based facilities if they are two seperate things, because these facilities are restricted on the basis of SEX. NOT GENDER. Trans activists know in their heart of hearts that the reality and primacy of sex is death to the idea that men can become women.
Similarly, finding the opposition to men in women’s sports “transphobic” depends upon those so offended realising that the “men” in question are TiMs, and the implicit understanding that they are not women. They’re like Republicans opposed to discussions opposing racism and sexism because they think they’re the ones being talked about, even though nobody has said the “R” word. If “transwomen are women” were actually true (and more importantly actually believed by trans activists), then trans activists would find nothing objectionable in this statement, because they could say it’s not about “transwomen” who are just another kind of women (like they’re constantly reminding us). But, tellingly, they can’t make this leap. They can’t keep quiet. They take the bait and prove to all who would notice, that they don’t really believe TWAW, that they know that transwomen are not women, that they know that humans can’t change sex, and tthat hey know that this sex-based prohibition will keep TiMs out of women’s sports. The constant use of the TWAW mantra is self talk as much as it is a bullying admonition to avowed unbelievers. The first people trans activists must lie to are themselves.
It’s a wonder that trans activism doesn’t implode under the weight of so many internalized lies and contradictions against which they have to guard themselves, and each other. And this is even before the efforts required to enforce acceptance of, and submission to these lies outside of activist circles. This might help explain the extremism of their rhetoric; their loyalty is demonstrated by the vehemence with which they defend the illogical and the impossible. The violence with which opponents are threatened can just as easily be turned on erstwhile allies who backslide or flag in their enthusiasm. The threats are for anyone who crosses them, ally or not. One wrong step results in shunning and ostracism, and everyone is always just one wrong step away from herasy and “transphobia.”
Rat: Wait. One of those wabbits is a weasel.
Chief Weasel: No I’m not. I’m a rabbit!
The jabberwocky is intended to keep “allies” always on their backfoot, never able to rest on their laurels as they try to sort the “right” stance to take, never finding an equilibrium. Allies must always have a ready apology and a promise to “do better” while not being exactly sure what “better” really is.
From our perspective, I think “better” ends up being “worse”.
Kara Dansky has a great Twitter thread about the history and the protest, including a link to video from inside the store.
https://twitter.com/KDansky/status/1616867804308996096
That is a great thread, and I was tempted to share it Saturday but I know some of yiz don’t like a diet of all tweets so I try to ration them.
“their loyalty is demonstrated by the vehemence with which they defend the illogical and the impossible”
I recall reading somewhere that that sort of thing is a common ‘costly signal’ of beloning to the in-group. Affirm belief in some absurdity which costs you status outside the group to confirm that you really are loyal to the in-group. See most (probably all) religions, flat earthism etc.
Other costly signals are, going through hazing as the initiation to the group, tattooing the gang symbol on oneself, bodily mutilations like circumcision…