The very definition of adult public discourse
Rex Murphy is scathing on the campaign to silence Meghan Murphy:
[T]he Toronto Public Library (the well-known free-speech-mongering fascist hive) was the scene of great turbulence when Meghan Murphy (feminist scholar, writer) rented a room in one of its divisions to give a talk on gender identity and its various legal and other implications.
Now people living in less enlightened cities than Toronto might think that a civilized, qualified woman — feminist, too — speaking on the subject of women, in the quiet dignity of a public library, to people (many of them women) who wished to hear her, was the very definition of adult public discourse, an illustration of a healthy civic climate, and a very fine addition to the intellectual state of democracy.
Further, and this is a key point, the very consideration that the public library system of a city was obligingly renting a room for discussion and debate was proof, if any were needed, that TPL was living up to the great traditions of libraries since they came into the world, of providing a haven for intellect, exchange and debate.
A haven for TERFs you mean.
Immediately, the cry went up from always alert trans-activists that the library system was hosting “hate speech,” that it was a place where “bigotry” had found a home, that as a publicly funded institution it had no “right” to supply a “space” for “transphobia.” To judge from the volume and intensity of the outcry, one would believe that should this Megan Murphy give her 40-minute talk to a hundred people who wanted to hear it, Toronto was on a slide to become the Rome of Mussolini, liberal culture would expire, and it would scarcely be safe to go out at night.
…
As for the embattled Meghan Murphy, the most tireless label plastered on her — in news reports, sour columns and in the howling street — was that she was a “self-described,” “self-designated” feminist. That she couldn’t therefore be a “real” feminist. The careless mouths making that charge were standing in a thunderstorm of irony and not noticing they were getting drowned in the downpour.
What is the axle on which trans-identity turns? … Give me a minute here … I’ve got to check … Oh, yes. It’s self-identification. Self-description. Per exemplum, Ms. Yaniv, late of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, and now bearing its fines, “self-identified” as a woman. That same self-identification gave Yaniv the “standing” to harass more than a dozen immigrant women.
Surely Meghan Murphy has a little more ground than self-identified Jessica Yaniv to assert the less troublous category of “feminist.” Feminist is — hold on — not even a biological state. Feminism doesn’t ask other people to wax its particles. It is an intellectual orientation.
In other words it’s a category it does make sense to “identify” as or with or into. It can still be debatable, we can still say it makes no sense to call yourself socialist or conservative if your views don’t align with your chosen designation, but it’s not pure childish make-believe.
But our brave trans-activists want to claim their “right” to nullify Murphy’s actual work, education and experience as a feminist because — by their angry tally — she just says she’s a feminist. I suggest that using “self-described” or “self-identified” as a term of scorn and rebuke is not the ideal tactic for a movement built on self-identification and self-description.
A world where Rachel McKinnon is a woman because he says so but Meghan Murphy is not a feminist even though she says she is and countless feminists agree with her is confusing at best.
I can’t stand Rex Murphy; I can’t stand Rosie DiManno, I can’t stand the National Review. I can’t stand Barbara Kay. I can’t stand Andrew Sullivan. I hate hate hate that I agree with all of them 100% on this; I hate that in fact I don’t just agree with them I applaud them for speaking up; and I hate that they’re the only ones doing so.
What was that quote from a detransitioner in Sullivan’s piece?
Maybe her brother went alt-right because she went trans and all the concomitant nonsense put him off of the left?
I’ve just started reading Lukianoff & Haidt’s The Coddling of the American Mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure and I’m discovering where a lot of the TRA ideas and rhetoric comes from. And yet I’m about a third of the way through and they haven’t really mentioned transgender activism. Instead, they’re tracing the origins and popularization of what they call the 3 Great Untruths:
1.) The Untruth of Fragility (“what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”)
2.) The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning (“always trust your feelings”)
3.) The Untruth of Us vs. Them (“life is a battle between good people and bad people.”)
It’s interesting to read a discussion of “deny my existence” which has no relation to trans. A lot of things I thought unique to the discussion on gender turn out to have broader and older origins.
As it is, Artymorty, it’s probably good for us to reach across divides; it helps us avoid the temptation to demonize and keeps us grounded (#3)
It’s quite true that we should avoid relying on “us vs. them” mentality too much, and I suppose it’s healthy to reach across the left/right divide every now and then. I’m probably giving myself way too much credit here, but I believe I’ve always been the type to at least try to give the right’s ideas the benefit of the doubt — I wouldn’t dismiss them out of hand simply because they come from the bad guys. I’m trying to find an old Jon Stewart joke from the early 2000s I used to be fond of, that went something along the lines that you could make the left turn against any idea by simply getting Joe Lieberman to endorse it. I’ve always been aware that there’s a lot of that kind of tribal in-group thinking on the left, and I’ve always tried to put myself above it and ground my political stances on reason rather than tribal identity. (Or at least, that’s what I’ve flattered myself into believing.)
But in practice it rarely mattered whether one’s leftist beliefs came from merely identifying as a leftist or from reasoning one’s way into them, because the two were almost always in alignment, at least as I saw it. There were enough reason-minded people at the helm of leftist thought to keep the herd on course. No matter how hard I looked, I almost never found instances where the right’s position seemed more reasonable than the left’s. There were some examples where the left was wrong, though, and I kept them in mind as important lessons the left should learn from: their betrayal of Salman Rushdie; their knee-jerk attitudes about religious rights; Noam Chomsky’s genocide denialism in Bosnia and Cambodia; etc.
But things feel different now. Everything has completely shifted. The leftist herd is now led by emotional soundbites spread through social media, and it’s drifted far from the course towards reason. The right recognizes this and are seizing on the opportunity to position themselves as the shepherds of reason, and some young people are getting behind them. And it makes me sick to my stomach with fear, because mingling in among the right-wing herd are a lot of dangerous, harmful ideas that could quite literally destroy the planet.
Well, yes, that.
Many years ago I self-identified as a conservative. I think it was possible partly because many years ago the conservative position was more moderate, and partly because I didn’t really know a damn thing back then, and precious little more now. But I remember having once thought the Right was on the whole more reasonable than those New Age hippies on the left, so the occasional shock may be less.
[…] a comment by Artymorty on The very definition of adult public […]
This trio of descriptors covers Trumpistas just as well as TRAs. Or MRAs for that matter.
1.) The Untruth of Fragility (“what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.”)
2.) The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning (“always trust your feelings”)
3.) The Untruth of Us vs. Them (“life is a battle between good people and bad people.”)
When ‘progressives’ and ‘reactionaries’ are indistinguishable, you’ve got big trouble.
Not to mention the religious.