It’s not subtext any more
Department of There Are Sick Fuckers Out There:
https://twitter.com/TheHipsterRebbe/status/1134623895347220480
What is the “it” that leads to violence, medical mistreatment, and suicide? I guess it’s fanatical TERFitude that slows the progress of normalization of trans and nb people. So, women arguing that however marginalized trans people may be, it still doesn’t follow that men are literally in every sense women, and that women too are marginalized and abused and need to be able to continue to name that oppression – arguing that leads to violence, medical mistreatment, and suicide? Is that right? What is the chain of causation? Do the kind of people who are violent toward trans people spend a lot of time following feminist arguments? Is there any evidence that they do? Any at all?
But never mind, the hipster rebbe has bigger accusations to make.
https://twitter.com/TheHipsterRebbe/status/1134628383407714304
So there it is spelled out, which is unusual. The hipster rebbe is saying that feminist women are “pursuing” trans people in order to kill them or do harm, and that therefore it is “permissible to stop them by any means necessary,” which of course includes murder. This hipster dude is saying it’s permissible to murder feminist women who argue that women need to be able to keep the word “women” to describe ourselves and the subordination we are subject to. He’s saying go ahead and kill us, because it’s “permissible.”
Seems to me there’s a huge, fundamental difference between “gender critical feminists” and trans-hating religious reactionaries. The first group thinks it’s fine — even socially beneficial — for men and women to dress and behave in ways which have stereotypically been associated with the opposite sex. More power to them!
The second group believes these men and women are abominations. Men need to behave like men; women like women. Otherwise, society as a whole is threatened. Shame on them!
This distinction between positions is so wide, and so critical, that lumping their values and goals together because both sides emphasize biology seems like a kind of blindness.
I don’t think it’s blindness at all. It’s strategic. Well poisoning for those who are outside, undecided, or really don’t care about the issue at all. If think TRAs believe that if GC femminist arguments can be lumped together with those of right wing religious bigots, those arguments won’t have to be addressed. Gender critical feminist arguments are cogent and pertinent to the issue at hand and completely undermine and reveal the contradictions, inconsistencies, and absurdities inherent to trans ideology. Those arguments must be discredited and taken out of play before they can have an impact on policy decisions which are being rushed through at the behest of trans ideologists.
It’s not that different from creationists trotting out the same tired, long refuted arguments based on things like the willfull misreading of the second law of thermodynamics, dishonestly quotemining scientists who actually support science to make them look like they agree with creationists claims. The people using these tactics know what they’re doing, know that they are not arguing in good faith. That’s because they aren’t concerned with being right, but with winning. Look how TRAs use the conflation of sex and gender, how many make the racist claim that “transwomen are women the same way black women are women,” how many TRAs exploit the conditions and plight of intersex people for their own advantage. Look how many will throw out counter-examples of infertile, post-menopausal and voluntarily childless women when a definition of womanhood that mentions the ability of women to give birth is used by GC feminists, claiming these counter-examples somehow refute any and all biological definitions of “woman.” These are tired, refuted arguments, yet they are still deployed on a regular basis. I’ve seen all of them used, multiple times, in the relatively short time I’ve been looking at the whole “transwomen are women” “debate.” For me, his all started with Ophelia’s departure from FTB over that same assertion; it was a small foreshadowing of Peak Trans to come. And it gets peakier all the time…
Makes perfect sense. Questioning, critisizing, arguing, deadnaming and misgendering are all literal violence. What’s a little TERF rodeffing amongst TRAs and allies, eh?
Who was it again who was chasing a young woman with a hammer? That’s right, someone who was helping to train police on transgender issues. Maybe the hammer-wielder had just finished looking up the relevent passages in the Talmud and was doing a little pre-emptive strike, knowing this young women might go on to write a gender-critical letter to the editor or question a transwoman’s presence in a women’s change room. Maybe even forget to call someone in a variety store “ma’am.” Can’t be too careful or start to early. Hammer ’em now, ask questions later.
YNNB #2 wrote:
You are more charitable than I am. In my opinion Trans Rights Activists and Young Earth Creationists generally tend to believe their own arguments, sincerely thinking they’re both sound and simple. It’s the other side must be playing the dark, deep game.
Oh, some of the leaders may know very well what they’re doing, I agree. But if the rank and file are nodding along, my guess is the error somehow seems plausible all the way up. The division between ‘leader’ and ‘follower’ is pretty fluid. They’re not just being clever.
That first tweet about slowing the normalisation of trans and nota bene (that is what N.B. means, isn’t it?) people; is the Hipster (oh, how achingly cool he must be) suggesting that such folk are somehow abnormal?
Well, no, of course he isn’t, but imagine the outrage if a critic of trans dogma made the statement that trans people required normalisation.
What the hell is “dehumanizing” about recognizing a human being’s human biological sex?
Wha…?
Bruce, didn’t you know that the Europeans who colonised the New World were led by TERFs? Patriarchal TERF’s, at that.
The Mayflower’s flag was an image of a man in a dress, with an ‘X’ over the image?