Toxic wells
Oxford student newspaper Cherwell October 25:
A demonstration in support of trans rights will be held today in response to a meeting of self-described feminist group Woman’s Place UK (WPUK). WPUK was established in 2017 to oppose the trans rights enshrined in changes to the Gender Recognition Act, and has been widely condemned as transphobic.
The well is poisoned so carefully from the outset. “in support of trans rights” – because what kind of fiend could oppose someone’s rights? “self-described feminist group” – but we know better, don’t we, wink wink nudge nudge. “to oppose the trans rights” – there they are! They’re the kind of fiend who oppose someone’s rights! “widely condemned as transphobic” – the way we are condemning right now, with lies and innuendo. Pass it on.
Trans Action Oxford, who are organising the demo, decided not to directly protest the WPUK event, but instead hope the demonstration will show solidarity with the trans community. They said that rather than “play[ing] into their narrative of false victimhood, we are looking to re-centre trans voices, and to discuss trans issues alongside cis allies in a respectful and tolerant manner.”
Because women are stupid tiresome bitches, while the trans community is awesome. (The people at Trans Action Oxford need to up their game though – they mean “their false narrative of victimhood, not “their narrative of false victimhood.” Let’s get those clichés accurate.)
Some students are particularly concerned about the participation of Selina Todd, a Tutorial Fellow in History at St Hilda’s College, in the WPUK panel. Todd has previously faced criticism for her views on trans rights, but has defended her views on the basis of academic freedom.
I doubt that it’s quite that simple. I doubt she thinks her views are all wrong but defends them on the basis of academic freedom. I suspect she also defends them on the basis that they’re neither wrong nor hate-mongering, contrary to what “activists” would like everyone to think.
Todd has published her views on her website, where she states she believes that “being a woman rests both on certain biological facts and on the experience of living in the world as a woman, from birth, an experience that is shaped by particular kinds of oppressions.”
Ooh, gee, that’s what I believe too. Weird, huh?
One student at the college, who wished to remain anonymous, emphasised their concern about how this could impact students. They said: “St Hilda’s college and the History faculty should reassess their position in continuing to hire Professor Todd.
“How can a transgender student feel comfortable with the knowledge that their college believes that academic free speech is more important than their existence? Professor Todd has continually made this argument about freedom of academic speech which is not valid.”
But how does “their existence” come into it? Todd is not arguing that trans people (or anyone else) should not exist. The issue isn’t their existence, it’s their self-description, which 1. is wrong and 2. is incompatible with the self-description of, for instance, women, who are also a subordinated group.
A member of Trans Action Oxford also criticised Todd’s role, telling Cherwell: “I think it’s clear that there’s no place in Oxford for bigotry like Selina Todd’s. Her rhetoric is obviously harmful to the lives of trans people across the country, but it’s also worth stressing the impact on any trans students she might teach.
“Studying at Oxford is hard enough without your tutors denying your right to exist, and it’s vital to students’ welfare that they don’t have to face this kind of hatred.”
There again – she’s not denying anyone’s right to exist.
If they can only make their case by telling these stupid abusive lies, how good can their case be?
Todd denied claims that she was transphobic, telling Cherwell: “The claims that I am transphobic or ‘deny’ anyone’s existence are groundless and defamatory. I am very proud to be speaking at the meeting called by A Woman’s Place UK. Woman’s Place UK is not transphobic.
“Given that sex harassment affects many female students and staff in UK higher education, and the sex pay gap within higher education is higher than the national average, I consider sex discrimination a pressing issue.”
How very dare she, yeah?
I’ve been seeing many friends on Twitter saying today that Todd’s employers are under heavy pressure to fire her.
self-described feminist group Woman’s Place UK (WPUK)
self-described? Do they want to go there?
That too.
These views (that people are women or men on the basis of biology) are still common outside of academia and social media, though. Right? If you ask people on the street, won’t you find that most people hold views that are (according to transactivists) “transphobic”? Namely, that people are women or men not on the basis of their feelings on the matter, but because of their biology and how they’ve been socialized as a result of their biology?
@Ben #3,
Absolutely, I think if Billy Eichner did a “Billy On The Street”-like segment where he went up to random people on the street and asked them questions like, “Do you believe being a woman rests both on certain biological facts and on the experience of living in the world as a woman, from birth, an experience that is shaped by particular kinds of oppressions?” virtually everyone on earth would say yes to that. And I think if he asked people if someone should be fired for saying that, he’d get puzzled stares.
Strange times…
It’s always their “existence”, then a short step to opinions being “literal violence”. Why does anyone give these illiterates a hearing?
@KBPlayer;
The idea that arguing against an opinion can be the denial of a person’s “right to exist” didn’t originate or become popular with trans ideology, though. It can be traced back I think to concept creep in the therapeutic culture of the 80’s and 90’s. Physical safety started involving emotional safety, so that getting one’s feelings hurt began to be equated with actual danger and real violence. Add in catastrophic thinking and the assumption that identity is sacrosanct and requires special protection and any claim which places — or seems to place — a group as “less than” is now seen as dehumanizing. It “unjustly demeans the value of someone’s identity.” (https://reason.com/2017/11/17/the-move-to-stifle-speech-on-campus-beca/ )
You can find the same phrase used for race. A speaker arguing that there are unintended consequences to putting too much focus on police brutality or a teacher dismissing concerns about cultural appropriation in Halloween costumes is “denying the right of Black People to exist” or “question(ing) people of color’s humanity.” It’s just that trans ideology seems to be a Perfect Storm for the whole “denying my existence” thing. Gender identity exists only in people’s beliefs about their gender identity. If someone is defining themselves by it, then being mistaken now means they’re not real, either.
Do you have any examples of that, Sastra? Of black activists talking about “denying the right of Black People to exist”? Talk of denying their humanity is quite a different thing, and far more reasonable – historically many people did very literally question or deny the humanity of black people. But I think “denying the right of ___ to exist” is very current jargon, and that it’s born of all the desperately bonkers ontology of trans activism. I don’t think anyone else wants to use it, because it’s so idiotic.
Editing to add: I don’t mean denying their humanity is more reasonable, I mean talking about other people denying their humanity – talking about racist discourse that denies their humanity – is more reasonable. Wording is hard sometimes.
It sounds a lot like those arguments that religious apologists do. When you question the existence of God, you are literally challenging the entire worldview of someone who has wrapped their identity up so thoroughly in God that we should never be so cruel as to deny God, even if he doesn’t actually exist. This is so commonplace in certain circles, the idea that because people’s identity is so tied up in their belief that it is devastating to them to question the belief in even an objective, detached manner that doesn’t target the believer at all. It is seen as a personal attack.
Even in that instance, I don’t recall anyone complaining about someone denying their right to exist, only claiming that our not believing in god was devastating to the person who was a sincere believer.
@Ophelia #7;
The two quotes were from college activists, and were in the article I linked to. The “right to exist” one was taken from a student letter quoted at length here — https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/read-what-radicals-really-think-about-free-speech/ — and the other lifted from something at Yale. Both involved race, so there’s at least one use of the silly phrase outside of the context of trans activism. I also think I saw it mentioned another time in The Coddling of the American Mind, also in a non-trans context. I don’t know the race of the protesting students.
A quick google search came up with a lot about denying Israel’s right to exist. I suppose it’s possible that language from pro-Palestinian sentiment has bled into other concerns of the Woke, but to my ear the phrase sounds like something once tossed around in group therapy sessions, possibly legitimately (“my abusive boyfriend says I have no right to live”) or not (“honestly, my parents act like I don’t even exist, they won’t let me drive to school or anything.”)
I saw this tweeted by trans sympathisers. A quotation from James Baldwin about “right to exist”.
https://twitter.com/sjharte/status/1196465541755613185
Ah yes, there it is. Here’s the passage where it’s embedded:
There’s more of the same. There’s so much jargon it’s difficult to extract the grains of truth from the…soup.
@iknklast #8:
It also reminds me of the fairly common claim that “atheists don’t exist” because everybody knows, deep down, that there is a God. I’m an atheist, and I’ve encountered that plenty of times.
But while it’s frustrating to be told that we don’t believe what we believe, I’m not sure I’ve seen the complaint “they’re denying our existence!” being made against the religious. I wouldn’t put it that way myself. For one thing, I view atheism as a reasonable conclusion, not the defining feature of who I am. They’re inventing what they see as going on in my head.
Still, that very real instance of the ‘denial of the existence of X made to X via disagreement with X’ might have contributed to the meme. And trans activists might also be assuming that GCFeminists are inventing what goes on in the heads of trans people — that they don’t really believe they’re the opposite sex. “They’re not trans at all!”
No, I can grant that they believe it. But, just as with people who Know There Is a God, there’s a possible slip between being sure and being right.
Sastra, I haven’t seen that one either. I haven’t even seen the religious claiming we’re denying their existence by denying their god, only making their existence miserable in some way or another. And, of course, leading to the decline and fall of all decent civilization.
That makes me think of this one:
One of the first things I teach my students is that the three most important words they will learn are “I Don’t Know”. Whenever my students answer one of my in class questions with that phrase, I congratulate them on using their three most important words correctly.
The world will not come to an end if we admit we aren’t sure about something, even something we are comfortable accepting. Can I be 100% sure evolution happened? Of course not; that doesn’t mean I have to accept that creationists are right and goddidit. Can I be 100% sure that I am sitting here typing these words right now? Of course not. Even of that, I cannot be sure, even as I watch myself doing it. I can be quite confident, but not sure. I would not say “Evolution happened, period.” “I am typing these words, period.” “These are my feet, period.”
People who say “transwomen are women, period” are not acting from knowledge, but from faith. They want it to be true, so they say it, then they believe it, then they say it again with confidence and conviction, and anyone who doesn’t accept it is evil, wrong, and dangerous. Meanwhile, I can be perfectly content walking around on my feet without having to be 100% sure those are my feet, knowing that there could be some odd quirk in the universe that makes me only think they are my feet, and still manage to stand upright and get from point A to point B without falling over (well, that last one isn’t so sure; even if they are my feet, I could still fall over). I can say to someone in the grocery store, “Hey, you’re stepping on my feet!” even without that total 100% certainty that I exist, and I have feet, and those are my feet.
But the trans “folks” believe they cannot exist without 100% certainty that they are who they say they are, and that 100% certainty has to extend to everyone else having 100% certainty, as well, no questions asked. Period.
So get off my goddamned feet, because those are my feet, period. (Sorry, just kidding).
[…] be a campaign to have her sacked from her job being a professor of modern history at Oxford. More here and here and […]