As a professor in the Department of Intersectional Wokeitude, did Krug have to make any sense, or refrain from morally disgusting posturing?
Fake ‘authenticity’ is a license for bullshit. It doesn’t have to involve counterfeiting ‘oppressed’ status. Remember James Frey, and Helen Demidenko. Its a short step from there to Asa Earl Carter or Misha Defonseca.
I can’t really say much more about this than Megan Murphy.
I can’t help but be amused by the anger and condemnation expressed by the very woke, aghast that someone would take on an identity not their own in order to acquire status and leverage in a world that judges one’s words and actions based not on their value, but on their proclaimed identity. Today, a man who claims to be a woman is said to suffer infinitely more than an actual woman, on account of “cis privilege.” A white woman, of all people, how dare she, must sit down and shut up, as she is too high on the privilege ladder, as defined by the woke. If she is middle class, she may as well drop dead.
I am further amused when it comes to the obvious questions around why it is appalling for a white person to adopt the identity of a person of colour, but not for a male to insist he is female because he prefers a dress to pants or because he enjoys the sense of power he feels waltzing into the women’s change room, knowing that if any woman dare protest, he is completely within his rights to accuse her of a hate crime.
The very same people who believe women like Krug and Dolezal should be tarred and feathered, who complain that to identify as something you objectively are not constitutes “gaslighting” and “violence,” will, with a straight face, insist there is such a thing as a “female penis” and that “men menstruate too.” Not only that, but these very same people would not hesitate to cancel a friend or colleague who dare ask what the difference is between a white person who claims to be black and a man who claims to be female.
Yep. Which is what Rebecca Tuvel argued in that Hypatia piece that caused such a disgusting outburst of condemnation and shunning from academic philosophers, except that Tuvel was making the opposite case – not “if it’s not ok for Dolezal it’s not ok for men” but “it is ok for trans women so on what grounds is it not ok for Dolezal?” She was on their team, basically, yet still they tore her to pieces.
Of course they do that by changing the language. We are not “women”, we are “cis-women”. We are “white women”. We are “Karens”. We are “middle-class women.”
Funny how they don’t reword the language around men the same way. The only time you even hear about trans men is when they want to stick it to women (again) by claiming that men can menstruate, men can have babies, etc. Or when PZ wants to argue about the bathroom bills by putting up a picture of a bearded transman who looks so male no one would ever question his use of the men’s room. The thing is, most transwomen cannot pass. They do not look like women. They do not act like women. They do not take on the burdens of women, only the name. They don’t take over the second-shift housework. They don’t give back 30% of their paycheck. They don’t water the plants, make the coffee, or run the errands for people at work (or at home, possibly).
This has been noted before, but it bears saying. Most of the transwomen screaming to be allowed to shove themselves into women’s spaces (with sexual connotations intended) are white, middle-classed, privileged. They have had a lifetime of privilege leading to a mammoth sense of entitlement that is outraged by our telling them “no”.
And, of course, also common (and also noted here frequently): the desire to have sex with lesbians seems to be a big thing, but they don’t understand what a lesbian is because they think changing their name and putting on a dress will make lesbians ready to have sex. The idea that lesbians are not interested in penises seems to flummox them.
And yes, it is identical in nearly every particular to white people claiming to be black, though it appears to be a more widespread phenomenon. It is a privileged member of the oppressor class taking on the identity of the oppressor. The main difference is that I don’t see the “transracial” people threatening black people with barbed wire covered baseball bats. Or telling them to die in grease fires.
JtD @ 3 it’s funny you should mention Helen Demidenko because she continues to prosper, under a different last name. She gets more writing commissions than she can keep up with (and, in all fairness, she’s very good at it).
The idea that lesbians are not interested in penises seems to flummox them.
Which leads to more re-wording or amateur diagnoses. A lesbian with no interest in taking a lover with a penis either has a genitalia obsession, has outdated hang-ups which she has to get over, or is a plain old bigot. Freedom of choice is apparently not a consideration.
The main difference is that I don’t see the “transracial” people threatening black people with barbed wire covered baseball bats. Or telling them to die in grease fires.
Or telling them to get over their melanin obsessions/hang-ups, to quit their bigotry, or that it’s none of their business who identifies as black.
What a wholly disgraceful person.
Well, ACAB, amirite?
/s
As a professor in the Department of Intersectional Wokeitude, did Krug have to make any sense, or refrain from morally disgusting posturing?
Fake ‘authenticity’ is a license for bullshit. It doesn’t have to involve counterfeiting ‘oppressed’ status. Remember James Frey, and Helen Demidenko. Its a short step from there to Asa Earl Carter or Misha Defonseca.
And now, back to ‘The News for Parrots/Wombats.’
I can’t really say much more about this than Megan Murphy.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/09/10/jessica-krug-is-the-natural-result-of-identity-politics-stay-woke/
What’s the difference between Krug and McKinnon? One of them is vilified and one of them is praised, for doing basically the same thing.
Yep. Which is what Rebecca Tuvel argued in that Hypatia piece that caused such a disgusting outburst of condemnation and shunning from academic philosophers, except that Tuvel was making the opposite case – not “if it’s not ok for Dolezal it’s not ok for men” but “it is ok for trans women so on what grounds is it not ok for Dolezal?” She was on their team, basically, yet still they tore her to pieces.
Of course they do that by changing the language. We are not “women”, we are “cis-women”. We are “white women”. We are “Karens”. We are “middle-class women.”
Funny how they don’t reword the language around men the same way. The only time you even hear about trans men is when they want to stick it to women (again) by claiming that men can menstruate, men can have babies, etc. Or when PZ wants to argue about the bathroom bills by putting up a picture of a bearded transman who looks so male no one would ever question his use of the men’s room. The thing is, most transwomen cannot pass. They do not look like women. They do not act like women. They do not take on the burdens of women, only the name. They don’t take over the second-shift housework. They don’t give back 30% of their paycheck. They don’t water the plants, make the coffee, or run the errands for people at work (or at home, possibly).
This has been noted before, but it bears saying. Most of the transwomen screaming to be allowed to shove themselves into women’s spaces (with sexual connotations intended) are white, middle-classed, privileged. They have had a lifetime of privilege leading to a mammoth sense of entitlement that is outraged by our telling them “no”.
And, of course, also common (and also noted here frequently): the desire to have sex with lesbians seems to be a big thing, but they don’t understand what a lesbian is because they think changing their name and putting on a dress will make lesbians ready to have sex. The idea that lesbians are not interested in penises seems to flummox them.
And yes, it is identical in nearly every particular to white people claiming to be black, though it appears to be a more widespread phenomenon. It is a privileged member of the oppressor class taking on the identity of the oppressor. The main difference is that I don’t see the “transracial” people threatening black people with barbed wire covered baseball bats. Or telling them to die in grease fires.
JtD @ 3 it’s funny you should mention Helen Demidenko because she continues to prosper, under a different last name. She gets more writing commissions than she can keep up with (and, in all fairness, she’s very good at it).
iknklast:
Which leads to more re-wording or amateur diagnoses. A lesbian with no interest in taking a lover with a penis either has a genitalia obsession, has outdated hang-ups which she has to get over, or is a plain old bigot. Freedom of choice is apparently not a consideration.
Or telling them to get over their melanin obsessions/hang-ups, to quit their bigotry, or that it’s none of their business who identifies as black.