Something puzzling here.
I see that tweet so I find Z Nicolazzo PhD so I find Z Nicolazzo’s page at the University of Arizona.
Dr. Z Nicolazzo is an Assistant Professor of Trans* Studies in Education at the Center for the Study of Higher Education and a member of the Trans* Studies Initiative at the University of Arizona. She earned her Ph.D. in Student Affairs in Higher Education at Miami University (OH), and formerly worked in various functional areas in student affairs, including residence life, sexual violence prevention programming, and student activities.
What is Trans Studies? (Or Trans* Studies if you insist.) How does one be a professor of it? How is it an academic discipline? What are we even talking about here?
I wouldn’t bother, I wouldn’t have looked beyond the Twitter account, were it not for the fact that the doc expresses the all too familiar hostile contempt for women, dressed up as cutting edge progressivism because it’s expressed by a Trans* person.
Ah yes those pesky white women, says the white man. Buncha Karens, aren’t they.
Professor Nicolazzi includes a photo on his page.
It’s the earrings, you see, along with the lipstick. Those make it totally right-on for him to express his contempt for women right out in the open.
Comments
18 responses to “One delusion of an abusive male”
There is a PhD crisis. It’s almost meaningless to have one now except that it helps with job applications, but the garbage that PhD’s spew these days is despicable. Also yes, the so called “disciplines” one can major in is laughable. The institutions that make this situation possible have lost all credibility, and the people who jump through the right hoops or have the financial resources to buy their degrees have destroyed the whole institution of “higher learning”, as if that means something. The dumbing down has reached every corner of academia.
So now it’s “oh, you have a Phd?”, great, another educated idiot.
twiliter, I certainly think there are still Ph.D.s that have meaning; not all programs have dumbed down or accepted nonsense. But yeah, the BS does render anyone’s Ph.D. questionable to people who do not know how to parse the dizzying array of specialists in Seinfeld, or Trans* or whatever from the still high quality solid degrees. And my degree, in Environmental Science, is still a rigorous degree in many places, but in some schools teeters on the edge of nonsense and in others falls over that cliff, buying into the New Age aspect of Environmental “Science” wholeheartedly. I am lucky to have attended a rigorous program; I would not have chosen it otherwise.
And I love the way they always throw “white” in front of woman. Because they get to pretend that we are so incredibly privileged, the most privileged group that has ever lived, simply by calling us “white”. When they add “middle-class”, their argument becomes so sound it can’t be defeated, right? (Not). It’s nothing but hand waving and noise, but it sounds convincing to too many people.
twiliter — I remember Ph.D stood for “Piled Higher and Deeper” even back when I wasn’t getting an education, so it’s nothing new.
As for Prof. Z, I’d be careful about decrying “pandering to one delusion” if I were him.
What in the blue hell is “violent biologic essentialism” anyway? Somebody skipped their hard science courses because they required too much effort, or (more likely) didn’t agree with their fantastical agenda?
Ikn, yes I was generalizing, but why should we have to weed through PhD’s like any other person on the street? There are some legit ones, but it seems less and less in the last 20 odd years.
Peter, I understand there have always been cranks, but it’s getting ridiculous…
At least Trans Studies has a subject matter that is slightly easier to point to than theology, though no less waffly and elusive in its use of language and the exact nature of what it’s trying to describe.
This is a twitter thread suggesting some of the reasons why and how trans ideology has caught on so widely and quickly, and why it is so resistant to questioning and debate:
https://twitter.com/UmbertoKerouac/status/1255834450367307777
Ah, biological essentialism. The evil idea that one’s biology determines one’s… biology? One’s biology is an essential defining feature of biology?
“You only think that person is male because he has male biology!”
Yes? And?
Somehow they manage to skip the part where feminists have been saying forever that—while your maleness or femaleness constitutes your sex, and society determines your gender based on your sex—neither your sex nor your gender ought to define your opportunities, your fortunes, or your freedom to live your life as you see fit.
“You’re reducing women to their sexual anatomy!”
No, we’re “reducing” a woman’s sex to her sexual anatomy.
White women centering themselves, eh?
Well, the good Dr N is at the very least a soi-dissant woman, and is certainly white, so, yeah. The irony isn’t lost on me.
Anyway. I followed the link on twitter to the Trans Studies syllabus, in which we learn that
I doubt it’s all that often, but… well, doesn’t that seem like a nice thing to ask? Like, “I would like to know more about where you’re coming from?”
Apparently not. In the next paragraph, we learn that the question is itself “oppressive”.
I have no idea what to do about that. How on earth can one be oppressed by people asking good-faith questions about what one claims to be one’s academic specialisation? Unless, of course, it’s not a genuine academic specialisation at all.
But no. That can’t be. So it must be that Dr N is good and everyone else is awful. Especially those who engage with one’s academic research. They’re the worst of all.
Ahhhh no trans women can NEVER EVER be white women because white women are Karens which obviously trans women can never ever possibly be.
Trans women are peak oppressed, you see, which means they are also peak good and right and righteous and awesome. White women on the other hand are not oppressed at all plus they’re Karens and Karens are evil so it’s a Duty of Virtue to Call Them Out at every opportunity.
Not Bruce, interesting thread, seeing the TRA movement as a memetic virus. It’s a helpful perspective, and now I’m not so sure my Boomer sensibilities could reduce it’s refutation to simple biology. There is definitely some embedded dogma (however false) at work here in the cultural psyche, and it has some momentum. Given that, it’s still foolish to ignore good old fashioned biology, and I think challenging indisputable scientific fact (and common sense for that matter) is ultimately an exercise in futility. People would have to accept reality first, and there seems to be some inexplicable naïve resistance to that.
Enzyme… “So it must be that Dr N is good and everyone else is awful.”
Not just awful, according to him we are “white supremicist TERF’s” if we disagree.
I still can’t believe this asshole has a PhD…
A little rhyme that popped into my head:
Look at me! Look at me!
I’m anarchic, can’t you see?
Breaking every boundary,
So look at me! Look at ME!
I find the “white women” and “white feminism” shit particularly galling because black women are very active in gender critical feminism (as they were in 2nd Wave feminism) and this bullshit erases them.
Of the GC groups I follow on Facebook, roughly 1/3 are led by black women.
Trans propagandists use the “white feminism” charge to try and gain credibility for their cause by conflating it with black civil rights movements. Claiming that trans women are a subset of women and comparing them to black women in that respect is a similar rhetorical trick. I don’t know a single black woman who doesn’t resent this for the racist appropriation it is.
I think one of the ideas I’ve come to from the twitter thread by “Umberto Kerouac” I linked to above, is that for trans ideology, there are no good faith questions. All the TAs have is buzzwords and catchphrases. There’s nothing behind them. No arguments, no data, just intimidation, bullying, and psychological blackmail. Pointing this out, or even just initiating any sort of discussion that might lead to this uncomfortable fact is “oppressive.” Questions are dangerous because it risks exposing the flimsiness of their facade. There is only obedience, acceptence, acquiescence or unquestioning, unconditional support. One must applaud the Emperor’s wardobe without enquiring about the fabric, the stitching technique, or what size his hat is.
Well without appropriation where would they be? They appropriate woman-being, and move on from there.
Ah that Umberto K thread is good, thank you.
Why is there a Colorado State logo on the card?
I’m so tired of women appropriating the language of feminism to defend women from men.
@Bruce #13 –
I fear you’re right…