Parentheses do all the work
Now that I’ve calmed down a little I’ll tackle another chunk of Terfwarsanintro.
By positioning (cis, white) ‘females’ as a category uniquely vulnerable to the threat of ‘male’ violence (and especially ‘biological’ male sexual violence), trans-exclusionary arguments around toilet access – including those advanced by self-proclaimed feminist groups – lend support to the gendered and misogynistic discourses that have long positioned (white) women as the ‘weaker sex’ needing protection (by men, from men).
These discourses have racist undertones, as the implicit whiteness of the women who are the subject of protection means that racialised and especially Black women and non-binary people are more likely to be considered dangerously masculine (Patel, 2017).
It would be funny if it weren’t so infuriating, the sleight of hand of it. They arbitrarily slap down this “(white)” card and then use it for yet more arbitrary “implicit” bullshit – they build assumption on assumption on assumption, none of it backed up by anything more than parentheses or the word “implicit.” It’s such obvious bullshit. “The implicit whiteness of the women” – but who says the whiteness is implicit?? Or explicit or relevant at all? And by the way what color are you?
Moreover, discourses that position trans women and non-binary people as a ‘threat’ to cis women elude how (white) cis women’s ability to claim a position of vulnerability in this context is, itself, a reflection of the power that (white) cis women have over trans women (as well as racialised subjects of all genders).
Karen, I tell you. Karen Karen Karen. No other argument is needed.
Women don’t have power over men. Women don’t rape men, women don’t assault men in the street, women don’t kill men and then get away with it because they call it “rough sex.” Women as a class don’t have power over men as a class. Women as a class therefore don’t have power over trans women as a class (if trans women even are a class).
One’s ability to be recognised or awarded a position as ‘vulnerable’ is conditioned by whiteness and gender normativity.
Yes it’s such a privilege to be (and thus “awarded a position as”) vulnerable. The stats on violence against women make our favorite bedtime reading.
I think that’ll be enough.
I’m assuming that it must have occurred to this writer that here would be a splendid place to put all those sociological studies where women of color were asked “Are you okay with transwomen using the Ladies Room?” Their enthusiastic and unqualified “yes” responses could then be compared to the uniformly negative responses of middle-aged white women.
It’s such an obvious way to ground those otherwise unsupported assertions that I’m also assuming those studies are all referenced in the footnotes.
Come now, Sastra. Studies? Who needs evidence in this post-truth era? All one needs is insinuation boldly stated as fact and the willingness to suppress the evidence that puts the lie to the claim, a tactic which is often sufficient to convince the hard of thinking for long enough for it to become a ‘truth’.
It’s what the tobacco industry did when the studies started showing links to lung cancer: it’s what the petroleum industry did when the problems with lead started to appear. They drowned out the truth for years with a cacophony of misinformation presented as fact, and it’s basically this model that the trans lobby is following now.
I do wonder how long it will take for this modern Lysenkoism to implode. It would be nowhere if it weren’t for the degree of institutional capture it’s managed to achieve, but even this can only go on for so long against physical reality itself, which doesn’t really care that someday you might be forced to eat crow.
YNNB,
My guess is “until it starts to affect men.” Like if there’s a serious push to demonize heterosexual men who don’t want to date trans women. Up until now it’s just been stuff nobody cares about, like putting a trans model in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue — SI hasn’t been relevant in over a decade, so there’s no real backlash.
This is propaganda, not scholarship.
The woke see no difference.
Nullius, that thread was very interesting, especially some of the replies. There really are people who think seeking the truth through science makes you arrogant. No, thinking you have a truth no one else can see is arrogant. Having the goal of tearing down the edifice of science through poor science and poor philosophy is not humble. (Though no doubt Kevin Bird would deny that is his goal.)
Right? The degree to which this literal nonsense has penetrated every part of society is deeply troubling. What worries me more is how difficult it is to get people to even accept that not only do these types say this stuff, they actually mean it. Every attempt is met with certainty that I’m just nut-picking or misreading, or that the crazy-talk is just hyperbole, puffery, or metaphor. Somehow the possibility that Kevin Bird really means it when he says he isn’t concerned with truth when he does science is never on the table.