GCs don’t know better than teenagers? That’s just a blanket absolute rule is it? No gender critical adults know better than teenagers?
Come on. Teenagers don’t know everything. They’re young, and their brains haven’t finished developing yet. Of course they don’t know best on all occasions no matter what.
Lavery is an academic in the English department. Academics in the English department have a bad habit of considering themselves some kind of Universal Intellectual in a way that most other academics don’t. They talk as if they’re doing philosophy when they’re really not. We could blame Derrida and Foucault, or we could blame Leavis, or we could blame compensation (what does anyone even need a PhD in English for?), but either way it’s a thing. Lavery’s confidence in his own genius is unearned.
Comments
28 responses to “Clown indeed”
So no teenager ever had later regrets about in ill-considered tattoo or piercing? That’s some big blanket.
Unless you count doctors of education. (I don’t)
“…the problem that Nabokov diagnosed so brilliantly…”
The intellectual snob’s dodge: claim someone famous
arguedproved the assertion you are making, so that no working out need be presented. If someone is sceptical that the famous thinker really proved something, or that the thing the proved is applicable to the current context, accuse them of being ignorant of the topic. After all, they don’t know what so-and-so said of it!Exactly. That’s so English department.
Teenagers don’t know shit. That’s why their parents suddenly become — if not geniuses — smarter than previously believed when said teens hit the age of 25 or so. Or move out on their own. Or get married. Or have kids. Whichever comes first.
This is sort of a half-formed thought on my part, but I’ve never let that stop me before:
Isn’t there an odd contradiction at work that today’s children (including teenagers) are considered incapable of doing many other things that us olds used to do, e.g. riding a bus by themselves, yet are considered to have impeccable judgment on these life-altering decisions?
Screechy, not half formed at all. It’s an absolutely glaring contradiction. I have some half formed thoughts as to why people (children, teens, and adults) hold such incompatible beliefs in their heads at the same time. I’m sure most readers here can articulate it better than I would. Let’s just say that it’s yet another reason I regard the ‘children know best’ arguments as a crock of shit.
I’m with Allison Bailey. Lavery only seems utterly clueless that the clear meaning of what he tweeted is that the pro-trans position is predatory; he knows it full well, and is hoping that if he can turn it around so that it is those who are protecting children who are the predators, people who don’t think too hard about it might be persuaded to point accusatory fingers at the gender critical. It’s an immature, playground-bully tactic. “Who are you to tell me not to pull her hair? She likes me pulling her hair! You’re bullying her by not letting her get her hair pulled!” only what is at stake is a great deal more than a bit of scalp pain.
What a load of codswallop. Protecting children from predators is the exact opposite of predatory behaviour. The fact that the child is too immature to understand when they are being groomed by a predator, and so might be compliant, does not mean that intervening to stop the abuse is an abusive act even if the child objects.
That’s indeed an odd argument.
I, for myself, know better than what I knew as a teen. In fact, most of what I thought I knew as a teen I actually did not know, even what I now know I knew a bit more than blank void. That’s also because as a teen, I was not experiencing much beyond raw emotions, and while emotions are true, they are quite imperfect path to actual knowledge. The difference is, of course, that I grew up into a more rational being. I lost a lot that way, but also I gained way more.
This is most probably true for nearly everyone surviving out of teenage.
Except him apparently. So his argument boilds down to admitting he knows less as an adult than he used to as a teen. In this case he should simply stop making arguments.
Yes yes yes yes and yes. While I went out to grab a walk on Alki beach (which requires 3 buses there & 3 back) you all nailed it.
I didn’t pay close attention to his nonsense in the first tweet, so I hafta say now, my god. “The sentimental desire to protect children from predation” – what a scumbag he is. And no that’s not what Nabokov diagnosed.
Think for a moment about some of the things that adults believe under the influence of social media:
* COVID isn’t a thing – but if it were – Horse wormer and bleach is better than a vaccine.
* Trump is still the president
* JFK jr was having a second coming and joining Trump
* QAnon is a prophet
* Being a dick is equivalent to being a patriot
* The election was stolen
* Biology is affected by peer pressure
etc.
Is it any wonder that teens might be a bit confused.
He’s also claiming that it is anti-materialist to claim you can’t change your sex, because anything material can be changed! “If you can change your hair color, you can change your sex.” QED and Checkmate, TERFs!
My question: who would win the Most Specious Award? Lavery or Butler?
I don’t know, so let’s lock them permanently in a room so that they can figure it out. No electronic devices, just the two of them and a couple of yoga mats and a toilet and sink. Meals delivered through a slot in the door.
Ophelia#10: What does this person actually teach in the English department? She either knows nothing about Nabokov, or she is cynically & dishonestly using his reputation to make a ridiculous and disgusting assertion of hers look as though it might have some serious support.
Why not all of the above? I see no reason not to attribute his use of Nabokov to ignorance, cynicism and dishonesty. He’s got form for all three. I’m going for the trifecta.
Tim @#14: I thought he taught Victorian lit, but I went to check and it looks like I was wrong. His area of expertise is far more rarified and intellectual than that.
So here’s the answer to your question, straight from the ladyclown’s own page at berkeley.edu:
He certainly has mastered Academispeak.
When I was a teenager, we thought “Newspaper Tag” was a good idea. Lemme ‘splain:
At least two teams. Two guys (always guys, of course) to a team. One vehicle per team. One newspaper per game.
First ‘it’ team consists of a driver and a chucker. Goal of the game is to hit one of the other teams’ car with the newspaper. If you do, they’re it.
I should mention that this game was played on the narrow suburban streets just south of Chicago. It’s probably a better proof of a miracle than most cancer-cure stories that none of my friends nor I have a body-count from our teenage years.
Funny thing–I usually bring up this fact when people are saying that the kids today are uniquely stupid–they aren’t, they just have the disadvantage of their idiocy being writ to a much larger audience than we ever did. But at the same time, it’s a pretty clear indictment against trusting the wisdom of teenagers without any guidance or critique.
@16 Reminds me of teens I knew about back in the day who roped mailboxes, which is driving along in a pickup truck with a few wannabe cowboys in the back, the rope is tied off at the hitch and the ‘roper’ loops a mailbox with predictable results. An acquaintance of mine became annoyed at having to replace his mailbox every few months, saw them coming one day, went and got his pistol and fired it at truck intending to teach them a lesson. Landed himself in prison convicted of involuntary manslaughter as he fatally shot one of the kids. He didn’t intend to kill anyone, but it happened just the same. A case of teens doing stupid things that cause adults to do stupid things I suppose. This was back in the 80’s, IIRC he was sentenced to 10 years.
But when people like me try to impose our ideas onto teenagers’ bodies, you better get out of the way, or we’ll have you fired.
‘in Quaint, Exquisite, I argue that a distinctive and influential account of aesthetic universality developed in the UK partly as a reaction formation designed to protect against the disorienting effects of Japanese modernity.’
I don’t want to subject myself to this guy’s writing, but this is an interesting idea. We can see several situations in Western history that make a lot more sense when we realise that we in the West have historically only been exposed to ‘one side of the conversation’. For example, the development of Gothic architecture after Western exposure to Islamic architecture, the development of improved textile production and quality after Western exposure to Indian textile manufacturing. And my personal thought (maybe someone has written about it, though I’m not aware as I’m not an expert in this area), Frank Lloyd Wright’s development of minimalist open-plan house designs after his exposure to Japanese architecture.
We have? Damn. That’s wrong. Teenagers are choosing to transition due to multiple social and psychological factors. Someone must have forgot to proofread a surprisingly successful pamphlet.
No halfway decent academic who’s studied the GC position would make this kind of mistake. Either Lavery is a liar, lunatic, or ideologue.
Lady Mondegreen #12 wrote:
I saw that. Of course we can change sex. Just put a person into a large bllender and they’re no longer male or female — or human, for that matter. The chemical arrangement has been reconstituted into something that resembles a protein shake.
I’m not sure I see anyone here claiming kids today are uniquely stupid. In fact, the claim that teens are not able to make certain decisions wisely is being illustrated by most with examples from their own teen years. That seems to me to be saying “teens today are teens, just like we were, and they will make wrongheaded decisions”.
That being said, I am constantly floored at what teens today do not know. I don’t think this is that they are stupid, but that their K-12 education has failed them, or that they are too tied into instant gratification on social media, or that they have been raised to believe their feelings are more important than facts. But when a 20 year old finds out for the first time in my class that when leaves fall off trees the trees are not dead, they will come back next year, that is some weapons-grade ignorance. I could put it down to one uniquely non-observant person, but this is across the board. They don’t have basic knowledge, their vocabulary is so truncated they can’t write more than tweets, and it is a nightmare to teach college science to students who read and think on the third grade level.
So they are natural to begin to believe the nonsense of genderism. They have been prepped for it.
It is. But as far as I can tell it’s certainly not unique to Lavery. There is enough peer-reviewed literature from researchers in history and psychology available to read on the topic (and related examples) that I’d be disinclined to jump to a non-specialist, especially one with such a pompous and poorly-written summary presentation of their work.
“Transed against their will” is not completely wrong. Kids going to therapists or parents or school officials with certain psychological concerns are being guided or pushed down a path toward transition via the “affirmation model”. I don’t think “choice”, even “poorly-informed choice”, is an adequate description of the situation.
But “convinced the world” that this is going on? Hardly. Parents who abusively reject their gay son but embrace him when he declares he’s female are lauded as finally seeing the light. The mother who took her son to Thailand for genital modification surgery is similarly hailed rather than condemned. I only wish GC people had actually convinced the world.
@Sackbut #24;
The phrase “transed against their will” is I think deliberately provocative and designed to evoke images of kids crying and protesting as eager caregivers drag them off while reassuring them “ look, this is for your own good.” At the time, however, they’re often begging and pleading for transition— even those initially hesitant over “consider that you might be trans” from trusted sources like counselors or peer group, online or in rl. The idea of Becoming a Fresh, New, Better You is appealing whether it’s attached to ideology or religion.
I’ll agree that it’s against the hypothetical will of children in a state of Perfect Knowledge (or just Sufficient Knowledge) but that’s not where they are.
Thank you for looking this up, Lady Mondegreen #16. Well, I have lived in Japan for nearly 50 years, and love its great painters & printmakers – Sesshu, Hasegawa Tohaku, Utamaro, Hokusai et al – as well as the great Chinese painters, but as for the ‘disorienting’ (is that some sort of a pun) ‘effects of Japanese modernity’ (what is meant by ‘modernity’ here?), I am dubious. Yes, you can find in 19th-century & 20th-century Western talk about the ‘Oriental’ arts as being ‘quaint’ & ‘exquisite’, usually from people who were not artists themselves, had little to say anything interesting about art, and who used such terms defensively, as a way of pretending that the arts of East Asia were not ‘proper’ art. As for Kant, I feel in some of his remarks on aesthetics, perhaps wrongly, the long & crippling reach of Plato.But artists themselves are not philosophers of aesthetics, and certainly Western artists were open in many ways to the East Asian arts.
Would our study of the Brothers Grimm benefit if we focused on the belief that one can spin straw into gold?
It might also be a surprise for anyone with some knowledge of biology.
Then it’s a stupid motivating factor, because it’s impossible, and not in the way that it was once considered “impossible” for humans to fly, or land on the moon, or run a four minute mile. This is impossible like me thinking I can become an invertebrate with the right aesthetic technique. All the psychic investment in the world won’t change the nature of reality beyond one’s wishful thinking. But don’t let that stop you. Who needs reality when you can demand validation and affirmation? All you need is submission and obedience. Which brings us to…
You mean trans activism’s surprising success in capturing institutions, and using them in your attemps to bully and browbeat women into accepting the violation of their boundaries and the forced redefinition of “women” as a “gender” rather than a “sex” ?
@Sastra #25
I’m sure you’re right that it’s deliberately provocative, but I think it is also accurate for some portion of the cases. Keira Bell and other people who were convinced by misguided therapists and school officials and parents that they are trans, despite not bringing up gender dysphoria, I think fit that description. Yes, there are young people demanding transition and pushing parents; there are also parents pushing children. I’d say that nearly every single case of a “trans” toddler or small child fits this description.