Another scourge of White Feminism
Another one of those “being a man who identifies as a woman is such an excellent screen for misogyny” types:
That’s longstanding Pharyngula commenter abbeycadabra, who joined the populous but thin roster at Freethought Blogs a few days ago. That photo on the blog is captioned:
Abbey St. Brendan is five or six kinds of artist, maybe one kind of successful at it, a long-time FtB reader and grizzled veteran of the deadly TERF wars.
The opening of Cadabra’s hello world post:
Hi folks! I reckon most of you who might look at this post at least have seen my handle around, probably complaining bitterly at someone who is being a dicknostril, especially about trans issues. The plan here is to show off mostly the not so angry sides of my personality – which I would like to think is most of it, but hey, who knows.
I’m grateful to the existing Beloved Ruling Class here on FtB for accepting my application. I’ve been here for a long time – I’ve read Natalie Reed, Zinnia Jones, Crommunist, and Ed Brayton here; I’ve seen the dark moments when a bloggers were expelled for racism or plagiarism; I was here for Ophelia Benson’s grand final flounce and the sad passing of Caine – and have a lot of respect for the bloggers here. I’m honored they’re willing to take a chance on including me among them.
I’m so proud to loom that large in someone’s resumé.
See also a footnote on an essay on how kindness is compatible with being venomous to people you see as evil:
* In Holms’s case I’m really not sure what he expected to accomplish by doing this to directly pick a fight with a blog owner (not for the first time); perhaps he imagines himself a martyred crusader for White Feminism.
Ahhhhhhhh yes, White Feminism. Pasty white dude in lacy top is accusing people of White Feminism. Pasty white dude has found the only way to include himself among The Marginalized and women among The Oppressors.
H/t Holms for the source.
As always when white people accuse other white people of “white feminism “, what’s implied is “I speak for all the non-whites”. Because as we all know POC all agree with gender ideology.
You “flounced?”
Surely not. I cannot mentally picture you doing that, yea, even though I struggle mightily to grant you “the contempt and belligerence (you) so richly deserve.”
More important than being kind or nice, is being accurate.
I was going to break the habit of the last few years and go back to FTB to add some comment to that thread, but then realised it was abbeycadabra. They’ve always argued in an incoherent, dishonest and frankly delusional way, so I’m unsurprised that their replies to Holms and Latsot were so (1) point missing and (2) self-serving.
As far as either of our friends suffering from traumatic brain injuries goes, I can only assume it comes from being smacked over the back of the head by a trans activist’s baseball bat. Something Abbeycadabra would surely wholeheartedly endorse.
To be fair to abbeycadabra, a highly personal post on struggling with depression and how everyone deserves to be free from such psychological torture and “feel better” was not a good place to challenge someone for inconsistency, regardless of whether or not it had any merit, or it was done ‘tactfully.’ It couldn’t be done respectfully in that situation, and I don’t blame Abbey for lashing back.
I guess I’m glad I know nothing about Abbey. But “flounced” is just wrong.
Sastra, you are being fair and I admire you for that. As someone who has struggled with depression in the past and can always feel that black dog lurking just around the corner I do take your point seriously. I also don’t wish Abbeycadabra any harm (physical or emotional). But since they have always been at the especially pointy and vitriolic end of the ‘conversation’, have never given any quarter and have chosen to take an active role in the fight against TERFS (or fight against women’s rights as I see it), I don’t feel much compunction about pointing out their illogical stances and statements either.
They still have Zinnia Jones over there? That asshole has explicitly encouraged children to seek drugs on the black market to permanently, medically alter their bodies and “trans” themselves if their doctors and parents don’t believe transition is best for them. How is that guy not in jail, let alone celebrated at a so-called “progressive” website??
I remember when FtB was formed*, I started reading it right away. I spent a good couple of years defending it against charges of being overly woke (though that term hadn’t yet been born). My sense then was that the atheist “scene” was rife with smug smarter-than-thou types who looked down at civil rights/social justice issues as “soft” issues — unimportant “girlie” stuff — and although the bloggers at FtB went a little over the top sometimes, I figured it was a necessary corrective. I defended FtB vehemently and even got into IRL arguments over it at CFI pub meetups.
Even back then I had moments when I wondered if perhaps the “other side” had more of a point than I was willing to concede. (I particularly remember when PZ Myers admitted that his own daughter thought his heart was in the right place but that he was being rigidly ideological.)
Now I look back and wonder just how far off the deep end I had gone. Every time I hear about those characters they sound unhinged. I’m very embarrassed to have ever hung around them.
*I was a B&W reader first, and then I started reading FtB when the Notes & Comment blog migrated over. So basically this is all your fault Ophelia! ;-)
If his aim is to signal “I’m not a particularly talented, skilled, or interesting artist manque, ” mission accomplished.
Sorry Arty! Needless to say, I experienced the same trajectory.
I think the majority of us followed that trajectory re: FTB.
And I’ll still defend them and Pharyngula against unfair accusations because they HAVE been the target of absolute bullshit. They weren’t wrong to draw attention to and prioritise the treatment of women within movement atheism/skepticism.
But they quickly traded that reasonable position in for “women who identify as a distinct social class from men who grow out their hair and wear frilly tops need to shut the fuck up and/or kill themselves and don’t you EVER suggest unreasonable beliefs or demands have been made within the context of transactivism”. They’re entirely wrong about that. Entirely. The complete unwillingness to examine their current belief set is ridiculous. Angry, volatile, entitled males who identify as women are overrepresented in their commentariat though and if a commenter isn’t one, they’ve certainly bought into the ideology women are the oppressors or these dudes (or they get removed.) There is no discussion on FTB. There’s no room for it.
@Lady Mondegreen;
I think a lot of interesting artists dabble in different mediums, and she did say “maybe one kind of successful at it,” so I don’t see the issue. I don’t have a problem pointing out when people err, but I’m bothered when we pick apart innocuous bits of character which we’d probably excuse in each other, or anyone else..
From what I remember of Abbey, I liked her. Thought she was clever. She may also be difficult to deal with in disagreement (I don’t remember,) but that doesn’t stand out in trans discussions, or Pharyngula, or the Internet in general, for that matter. Mentioning Ophelia in the resume was poor form, but now a great big photo went up, so even steven, I guess.
“deadly TERF wars”
These drama llamas really have cooked up some wild anime-fueled imaginary world for themselves where they are the Cutie Sailor Sexy Giggle Giggle Squad locked in an interplanetary war across the known universe with the Evil Forces of T.E.R.F.
It would be pathetic and silly if they were not being backed by billionaires and determined to use that funding to destroy the rights of real women.
Since when are the “TERF wars” deadly? Disgusting, nasty, and from the FeMRA side occasionally quite violent, but deadly? I think not.
The closest to deadly the TERF wars have gotten is PZ’s commentariat telling people who don’t think transwomen are female to go kill themselves but it’s the suicide advocates calling a disagreement “war” and “deadly”. Give me strength!
Does everyone have a gas light-y ex-boyfriend who behaved exactly like this or am I the only one so fortunate?
marinerachel, I’ve never had a boyfriend and if I behaved like that to a girlfriend I think I’d die of shame before I had a chance to suicide. But, yeah, point taken.
FLOUNCE? That’s the word they use to describe Ophelia being hounded off Free Thought???
marinerachel’s gaslighty boyfriend indeed. I’m infuriated all over again.
Sastra, I don’t feel like being kind or fair anymore to these people: I’m with Lady Mondegreen and will make fun of them whenever I can. Flounce, for god’s sake.
Same! Insults from those I don’t respect are almost as good as compliments from people I do. Also, it tells me I live rent free in their head.
#4 Sastra
I would normally share your approach, but I’m with Rob’s #6 on this one. This person has been highly aggressive in the fight against women’s rights, up to and including the prior endorsement of violence that I brought up.
#7 Artymorty
No, Zinnia moved to The Orbit.
#13 BK
Yes, to my knowledge, only their side has proudly displayed barbed wire wrapped baseball bats and the like in the Trans Rights Activist / Gender Critical Feminism stoush.
:O
Latsot, urgent communique from the battlefront of this deadly, fatal, genocidal TERF Wars: You are on abbeycadabra’s Fairly Naughty List. Not the Very Naughty List like me, but still, you’d better watch yourself lest your status be upgraded!!! How dare you ask someone to explain a visible contradiction in their rhetoric without without first providing “some more reason to believe you are currently engaging in good faith”! You’d best explain yourself, mister!
…Never mind the fact that if the distinction was so obvious, it would be simpler to just… explain it… without having to go through an examination of the motives of the person asking for such.
This is easily one of the least intellectually honest interlocutors I’ve encountered, and I’ve clashed with slymepitters many a time.
If memory serves, abbey’s entire online presence is mansplaining. On FTB, that gets you awarded.
They’re still peddling the idea women who don’t think transwomen are female and feel both groups are better served by distinct movements advocating for distinct services are getting paid by right wing dudes. K. So. Where’s my money? Are you guys getting yours? Is it a cheque in the mail or direct deposit or what?
To a large extent FTB actually, degraded the conversation around various topics in a lot of ways.
I mean that’s where I first saw the argument that oppressed people aren’t obliged to explain their oppression, which I think is an awful idea for any activist to hold because it makes it so that people aren’t talking, they’re just giving orders.
And that is a big chunk of what I hold against trans activism when you get right down to it – because there is no feeling that they need to explain concepts, to get everyone’s buy in, there is no conversation there and there is no check to very bad ideas adopted on the basis of trans ideology.
So what should be issues that could be resolved in civil discourse, becomes issues which drive huge wedges between people.
Its also where I first saw people arguing that “Intent isn’t magic” – which further toxified every discussion, because intent matters a hell of a lot. If you assume malice in someone who disagrees with you, it is very easy to take misunderstandings and turn them into deep enmities, into these long standing feuds.
I think of the whole “terfing out” of our host, and I don’t think Ophelia Benson was that anti-trans at the start of it, I think Benson was not particularly interested in the topic up until it became a whole war on her for liking the “wrong” Facebook page. That I think started with this idea of “I don’t have to explain my position” coupled with “I don’t have to consider your position”, which sums up to “I don’t really have to think about these positions at all.”
And that I think is where you get this extreme view that children should be allowed to decide to transition, when they’re still yet to go through puberty. It is a very dangerous experiment to run with developing brains, but to challenge anything is to be the enemy because I don’t have to explain my position, and I don’t have to understand your concerns. I’m not your educator, and intent isn’t magic.
Another big part of the issue that grew in my mind there was that people can be wrong on one topic, but right on others. That disagreement, even fundamental disagreements, don’t mean that the other party has nothing to contribute on other topics, so simply liking somebody on Facebook for saying something you agree with shouldn’t spark a whole inquisition because they said something else somewhere else.
Eventually I moved away from the left because of Dan Arel and the embrace of Antifa, because this was a pattern of escalation that I’d seen building for years – it went from alienating those who disagreed, to considering violence against non-violent dissent as a valid position. In the argument I had on Arel’s blog, one of the guys I was arguing with went so far as to basically say he figured after the fascists, the liberals were next. I wasn’t the one getting likes there.
Because of this longstanding trend of not needing to think, which gave us cases where it was acceptable to assault an opposition journalist for recording an Antifa rally, or where assaulting a 60-year-old woman was standing up for Trans rights.
I think FTB actually played a role in the conversation in the leftwing spaces degrading like this.
And sure you can argue that the right are worse, I have done, but this isn’t a good pattern to be caught in when it just keeps getting worse.
What this really reminds me of are religious apologists who portray atheists as philosophical philistines for failing to consider “the best arguments that theologians and religious philosophers have to offer” while refusing to specify what said arguments are. The whole thing basically boils down to “I’m not saying what the best arguments are, but I’m still going to attack You for not dealing with them”. It’s the most cowardly, disingenuous full-hedge and catch 22 imaginable: Even if You did nothing but study theology for the rest of Your life, You’d die of old age before even making it through 1 % of everything that’s ever been written on the subject, and apologists would still be able to claim that the best arguments are among the ones You haven’t dealt with yet*, proving, once again, what an intellectual lightweight You are. Either the apologist wins.
And this really is the problem with the “It’s not the job of [oppressed group] to educate You about [type of oppression]” or “Learn to Google” trope. In the absence of telepathic powers it’s indistinguishable from what You’d expect from a charlatan: “If You had made the necessary effort to educate Yourself, You would know why I’m right, so the fact that You still don’t agree with me means You still haven’t put in the effort”.
I think we can all sympathize with people from underprivileged groups who are fed up with starting from zero every f**king time and explaining the 101 stuff over and over again to people who haven’t lifted a finger to understand what the fuzz is all about. But of course there’s no reason why You should have to start from zero every time, certainly not if the debate is taking place online. If You really do have some valid points to make, write them down once and link to that forever after (or if somebody else has already written them down, link to that). If the same objections keep coming up again and again, and You really do have a satisfactory answer, write the answer once etc. etc. This is what I did in my “militant atheist” days, and it spared me an awful lot of tedious repetitions.
* In fact, part of the definition of “sophisticated theology” seems to be that You haven’t dealt with it yet. Once You deal with it, it instantly becomes another example of atheists attacking strawmen and shooting down easy targets.
* Either way the apologist wins.
I really think this is a worthwhile consideration. And I think they made several of such worthwhile considerations.
I have a sister who seems to think that if she undertakes something with good intentions, she is not responsible for the negative consequences that may result. Having good intentions in her eyes means she can’t have made a mistake. “Intent is not magic” seems a very reasonable response to such an attitude.
But you have to think about when such a response is appropriate. That is were it often seemed to go wrong. People just started to use such slogan instead of thinking. So it was entirely possible that someone would argue something was done out of malice. Someone else would respond that malice wasn’t the intend, at which point the first would respond with “Intend isn’t magic” which at that moment was beside the point.
Bjarte Foshaug #22 wrote:
My recollection is that TRAs on Pharyngula and other atheist sites do this regularly. I haven’t seen an entrenched refusal to support claims re transgenderism on forums which have pretty much organized around the idea that claims need to be supported. I’ve seen it elsewhere, though. Instead, they argue. And when tired of that, they link. Eventually, at least some of them just hop right to links.
I have a problem with Argument-By-Link. Most atheists have the same problem when they’re dealing with theists, or if they’re skeptics countering pseudoscience advocates. It’s considered “rude.” The linked material is seldom short and sweet. It can be long and dense. It might consist of dozens of scientific studies, which may or may not be sound or even relevant. If you’re trying to have a conversation with someone, “ here, go read this” isn’t always helpful. Use your words; if you can’t give a halfway decent summary or pick out and articulate a single point, it’s not unlikely that you don’t really understand the material yourself.
Just not a big fan of links. And frustrated when people who won’t read theological treatises presented by lazy theists start throwing out the same sort of thing on a different topic.
#24 Axxyaan
Yes, the slogan came from a good and useful application. It was initially used in those cases where a famous person says or does something obnoxious, is chastised for it, and then issues the classic reply: “I didn’t mean it in a racist (or whatever) way, why are people angry with me?”
In reply to that sort of thing, it is useful rejoinder (though it is so condensed that a person might not know what it means if they’ve not encountered it before), and that is how it was used initially. Then, it became a mantra to trot out any time anyone ever offered an explanation of something they may have done. Overuse stripped it of meaning, and now it is hollowed out. Deploy it to close off any explanation that is not an abject, grovelling apology.
The same can be said of several more previously-useful phrases.
“Intent isn’t magic” is fine when it’s being used in a stricter sense of “good intent doesn’t render make hurtful acts not hurt.” But some people stretch it into “intent is irrelevant,” and that’s not true in most contexts.
To use the standard example I always saw cited at FtB, “if you step on my foot, my foot still hurts whether you meant to do it or not,” the statement is true. But it sure as hell matters whether it was intentional or not when deciding how to deal with it. Someone who accidentally stepped on your foot owes you an apology, and should try to do better in the future. Someone who deliberately did so is asking for a fight, and should be handled much differently.
Sastra, I have definitely seen people associated with FTB – maybe not so much the bloggers themselves, but definitely some of their followers – as well as the alt-left in general tell others to “go on Google” and “educate” themselves, without any further specifics: nothing about where to look or what to look for, but basically just “Keep looking and reading forever or until You agree with me”.
Re, arguing “by link”, I’m not talking about asking people to sift through vast amounts of text in search of something that might be directly relevant to the point they were making (or maybe not). I’m talking about linking (or even just copying and pasting the text itself) to specific answers to specific arguments. I may be in a minority here, but if someone has already made some effort to answer the exact point I was making and don’t feel like starting from zero for the millionth time just for my sake, that’s fine by me. Indeed, I’m inclined to think that anything else is to show contempt for other people’s time. Likewise if somebody brings up, say, the Argument from Design or Pascal’s Wager for the millionth time without bringing anything new to the table (an interesting new angle, slightly different premises etc.) and I have already gone out of my way to write a complete, carefully worded and thought out response, I don’t feel any qualms about serving them what I’ve already written rather than starting from zero, as if I were hearing these arguments for the first time. Or if they do bring something new to the table, but I don’t see how it makes any difference, I might provide the pre-written argument along with an explanation of why I don’t think their new points changes the overall conclusion.
Of course, once the basics are out of the way, we can proceed from that point. Others are free to challenge my pre-written points (mind You, hardly anyone ever did. Most of them would just go from one argument on my list to the next until they ran out, at which point they would either go silent, or get personal, or get into the kind of full-hedges I have already mentioned) and I am free to challenge theirs. What matters to me is that people are upfront about their own views and prepared to put them out there to be challenged or defended. How they do this (“by link” or starting from zero every time) is of less concern. What I don’t like are non-specific appeals to non-specific arguments that you can supposedly find on Google (or the theology section of the library) that don’t give You anything to argue meaningfully for or against, especially if failing to argue with them is going to be held against You,
Oh, dear. Verses. Stanzas. Rhymes. Iambs, even. Hmmm…okay.
.
When I’m writing doggerel, me
I know that I’m that doing it, see?
So don’t think me crabby
When I tell you, Abbey
The shite you write ain’t poetry.
.
Apparently, this person does participate in a fair number of artistic endeavors, so bravo! But self-comparisons with Cuttlefish are, I believe, uncalled for, at least from the evidence thus far provided.
@Bjarte Foshaug #28
I think we’re both arguing from personal experiences, and reading your point more carefully I can see I interpreted your meaning uncharitably. I was talking about walls of text or exhaustive third-party websites; you’re talking about specific answers to specific questions, especially those written by the person themselves. I remove my objection. I’d have to, since you’re describing something I repeatedly presented on IRC: the pre-prepared popup.
The one modification I still wish to make is the brief summary. Not just “ here’s a link addressing that very question,” but “here’s a link addressing that very question which successfully argues that X won’t lead to Y, because of Z (or whatever.)” Provide enough information that the moderately interested observer can follow the discussion without bothering to follow the link, but not so much that someone who responds feels secure in not following the link themselves. If nothing else, the other person can quickly figure out if it really is a specific answer to the specific question and/or whether you know enough to support your argument off script.
I definitely understand the “not wanting to start from zero” argument, because I face it so much myself in discussing global warming. I really don’t want to have to present the basics of the evidence over and over to people who have made up their mind. But I have to. The problem is, that takes time from actually doing what needs to be done, so it feels like we never progress.
I feel the same way about women’s issues. Even in groups of women, I sometimes have to start from zero to say, yes, there are women out there who do not make what their male counterparts make, who have few freedoms accorded them, etc etc etc. Can we please get on with the important issues of fixing things? The answer to that is no, because you always have to start at zero and by the time you get your interlocutor up to speed, assuming you ever do, the day is over. The next day, you have to start at zero again.
If there were ever a thing doing solid work for the oppressors, it’s ignorance. They count on it. Keep us busy starting at zero, and what little time is left we put out brush fires, etc. Nothing major will get accomplished, the world keeps spinning with the same rhythms as always, and the white male Christian component of the population remains largely in charge.
Perhaps what we need are designated “zeroists” who are in charge of starting at zero, while everyone else can pitch in and get the work done. These “zeroists” are who we refer questions to, and they will be trained and expert in starting at zero, and the constant nagging person who doesn’t know much and doesn’t accept that they don’t know much will no longer get so much in everyone else’s way.
[…] a comment by iknklast on Another scourge of White […]
@Sastra #30
Fair enough.
Oh, not only did she flounce, but this was her “grand final flounce”, so the last flounce after (presumably) years of flouncing.
I do nothing but flounce. NOTHING.
I bet you’re flouncing *right now* :O
That’s Ophelia. Nothing but lace and frills and long bouncy hair fluttering and floating and she flounces from the kitchen to the front door to the gelato shop. Wait, that sounds more like Abbey.
Holy shit abbey is sensitive…
https://freethoughtblogs.com/impossibleme/2019/12/14/kind-does-not-mean-nice/#comment-72It’s almost like abbey isn’t a very high emotionally functioning adult.
Holms, #38. But of course Abby’s sensitive, Abby’s a laydee who has laydee sensitive feelz.
It would probably have made more sense to put this comment:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2019/miscellany-room-4/#comment-2745091
here, instead. In which I was accused of “weaponising friendliness”.
How do some of these people leave their homes without crumbling to pieces? They manage to take offense to everything said online.