Many harmful aspects
Kelly Oliver posted the link to her piece on Facebook. There are some extraordinary comments on the post.
Hanna Vered Lipkind I am sorry Kelly was insulted. But she reduces all of the outrage to petty insult and mischaracterizes the nature of the critiques and harms expressed by her trans and black colleagues, delegitimizing them, and doubling the harmful silencing effected by Tuvel’s article in the first place. How difficult would it be to acknowledge that, yes, there were many harmful aspects to Tuvel’s article, and there are very real contentions at play here? Real people with real pain this past week, folks. Reducing cries of epistemic injustice to “thought policing” is nowhere near a fair characterization. Generally, a staunch ally would want to cede some discursive space when accused of epistemic injustice.
Miss the point much? That’s just more of the same catastrophizing and hyperbole that made up this whole mess from the outset. There were no harms. Tuvel’s article did not harm anyone. It’s dishonest to keep repeating that malicious lie. Real people can work themselves into “real pain” and still be wrong about the putative source of the pain. Pain can be real and inaccurately attributed.
I wonder how much discursive space Hanna Lipkind would cede if I accused her of committing epistemic injustice against me. My guess is that the numerical value would hover right around zero.
Hanna Vered LipkindIf Kelly genuinely believes that the deadnaming is the most egregious thing about the article, then she severely misses the point of the outrage, and is consciously neglecting a host of critiques that have been expressed over the last week (not the least of which regards Tuvel’s characterization of trans being as “changing” genders) . But Oliver cannot characterize the outrage without taking on an ironic and defensive tone. What steps has she taken to sincerely legitimize the voices of those she means to ally with? Because I haven’t seen those steps taken here.
Ah so it’s a crime now to say that trans has to do with changing genders? Then what does “trans” mean? If it’s not changing genders, then it’s “cis,” no? And then, that bullying horseshit about having to “sincerely legitimize the voices of those she means to ally with” – by which of course she means agreeing with the voices, which is where all this started. We don’t have to agree with the voices.
Considering the number of electrons inconvenienced in reaction to Tuvel’s paper, it obviously did not effect any sort of “silencing,” harmful or otherwise. It appears words have no meaning anymore.
My God. is it nothing but, “WHAT ABOUT MEEEEEEEE!!!” from these people? Are they are so self-focused that they seriously believe that it’s the world’s responsibility to actively work to prevent them from feeling anything but totally affirmed at all times? Is that what there is to look forward to from today’s youth in America? Good luck.
PieterB, I was about to make just that comment. You beat me to it.
Yes. This. I do this to myself all the time (I’m working on trying to quit that, but banging your own head against a wall does become addictive at times). We don’t always feel good about what other people say, sometimes because we are too wrapped up in ourselves to realize they didn’t really mean us, or they didn’t mean what they think they did.
As for that silencing thing, it sounds like the ones silenced were the academics who wanted to support Tuvel but were delegitimized and silenced (to use the awful, clunky words of choice of the shouters).
I think the problem (“problem”?) with saying that trans people have “changed” their gender is that we’re meant to say that they were always the gender they are now. Caitlyn Jenner was never Bruce. (Ignoring that Caitlyn Jenner talks about her life as Bruce.) A transwoman was always a woman, even before she knew it. Even when she was a child, I guess. I agree, it’s a bizarre fingers-in-the-ears la-la-I-can’t-hear-you stance. It seems to eliminate the concept of transition from trans.
Ben: Funny thing is, the trans writers I’ve read generally reject that notion, too. The idea that trans folk are always 100% certain of their trans status from day one is actually harmful to real trans people, who have to muddle through the decision-making process and should not be compelled to lie about their ‘lived experience’ in order to match the preconceived tale of “The Girl Who Knew” (to borrow a phrase from Natalie Reed, who despised this particular trope quite intensely).
The pain can be spontaneous, and very real, and still the person suffering can be wrong about its source. Happens all the time.
Or they can be right about the source, but wrong to object to it. Sometimes the right thing to do really is to try and toughen up.
There’s a difference between being treated, as an individual, with scorn and contempt–which, especially when repeated, is known to cause real psychological (and, via the mind-body connection, physical harm)–and being confronted with ideas that challenge one’s worldview. The difference is not in the pain–the pain experienced may feel exactly the same–but one felt assault is assault, and should be discouraged by society, while the other is the free exercise of thought and speech, and should be protected.
We identify–that word again!–with our beliefs, and challenges can hurt deeply. In addition, personal trauma can leave individuals feeling triggered by discussion meant to be impersonal. But it is possible to learn to separate personal hurts from ideas that feel like assaults, enough at least to mitigate the pain, and I daresay we’re all better off as individuals and as a society if we learn the necessary psychological skills.
In a world where Oppression Olympics determine who gets to set the terms of discourse, the dominant members of those groups get veto power on ideas they don’t like. Totalism isn’t any more palatable when the totalists in question are members of a putatively powerless group.
iknklast @ 3 – exactly; I do it to myself too. I’d pause to chastise myself but I suspect most people do it at least some. I recognize how it works all too easily.
That’s not to say feelings of outrage or pain are never reliable indicators of a wrong having been done, but it is to say that it’s childish and fatuous to assume they always are.
And since we can see people working themselves and each other up on all these comment threads…we know very well that’s at least some of what’s going on.
Speaking of dishonest characterisations…
Ah – hadn’t seen Lady M’s when I wrote # 7. Well said.
“Generally, a staunch ally would want to cede some discursive space when accused of epistemic injustice.”
So, their accusation is supposed to be sufficient to *compel* the other person to drop back into the Child ego state, and quietly sit and be reprimanded for what they did wrong? These activists feel their task is about “enlightening” others,and then setting up a web of rules and precepts designed to oblige the rest of the world to act in ways to protect them from being “harmed”. They are constructing their own house of cards that they want to be the new seat of government,, which is only possible because our society’s current veneer of civilisation is keeping those who don’t share their identitarian mindset from coming over and knocking it down by merely breathing on it.
I believe it is functionally impossible to set up a world where no one is offended by the actions of others unless a standard set of opinions is declared, and then everyone is constantly policed to make sure there are no wrong thoughts which could fester into offensive actions (sound familiar George?) Their ideal world reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode with the boy with magic powers that disappears everything that he doesn’t like, and the adults walk around in terror that they will do something to displease him. And of course, people like Hanna Vered Lipkind happily assume the role of the boy.
Ultimately, accepting the very notion of ‘epistemic violence’ means the end of disputation, which in turn spells the end of discourse. That is okay for people who accept the status quo, or who are simply able to go without thinking, but it guarantees that anyone who doesn’t accept the state of things has absolutely no incentive to be reasonable (or even nonviolent) in their disagreement.
@10, pretty much.
Ben:
‘A transwoman was always a woman, even before she knew it. Even when she was a child, I guess. I agree, it’s a bizarre fingers-in-the-ears la-la-I-can’t-hear-you stance.’
Sort of parallel with the way Wahhabis insist that everyone in the history of the Earth was ‘really’ Muslim. Even before Mohammed. Once you’ve surrendered your thinking to notions like that there isn’t much you won’t accept.
This idea of an eternal true Self is so naive.
Since we could all do with reading something to cheer us up now and then, this student editorial in the Wesleyan Argus is pretty good. I especially like the title and the final sentence.
@AcademicLurker, that Argua editorial is excellent. “Surely they know that policing the borders of a closed epistemic system is not a philosophical activity. It is, in fact, the opposite of the practice of philosophy.”
Sadly, that student is from the class of ’78. Seems to be the young ones who gravitate to closed epistemic systems so eagerly.
Sadly, that student is from the class of ’78.
Ack! I didn’t look closely at the author. I just assumed that it was a current student and was encouraged that it bucked the recent trend of fashionable illiberalism on college campuses. Oh well…