But when they do
A lot of people think this way? And that’s supposed to be a bad thing?
It’s self-evidently shameful to say that men don’t belong in women’s sports?
One, we don’t want to say “trans people aren’t real.” Two, we are not the equivalent of or allied with Fox News-style racists. What a horrible man.
“Folks afraid of cancel culture aren’t afraid of some broad, overarching stifling of discourse.”
Says you. People are afraid of being unable to discuss issues of importance to them, and express views that may disagree with those around them, without being fired, denied speaking engagements, harassed, threatened, attacked, or prevented from engaging in their desired careers or research areas. That’s sufficient to call it “cancel culture”. The fact that you have some different, broader understanding of the term is not relevant. Your comment is equivalent to “all lives matter”.
“They want to say that trans people aren’t real”
What do you mean by “trans people”? If you mean “a woman born in a man’s body”, then no, that isn’t real. If you mean “a man who identifies as a woman”, then sure, that’s real. But we can’t even discuss the difference between these and other formulations and understandings of terms without being attacked; we can call those attacks “cancel culture” or something else, but they occur.
I note that, just a few tweets after this one, Adam Davidson asked this of Teacake:
Um, I don’t know about you, but after just claiming that there is no “cancel culture”, you’ve just posted a tweet that sounds an awful lot like you are threatening to call Teacake’s employer and get her reprimanded or maybe fired for expressing her views and attempting to have a discussion with you. That’s “cancel culture” right there.
Trans people aren’t real.
If we leave aside the bizarre, meaningless, self-contradictory definitions of “trans people”, the only remaining one that I can think of is “people that have successfully modified their bodies and genitals such that they are now the opposite sex from the one as which they were born”. And such people aren’t any more real than people that can fly.
People that try to be transsexual are indeed real. As are, probably, people that try to fly.
@teacake90s is spot on. A very impressive timeline as well.
This is particularly keen >> https://mobile.twitter.com/teacake90s/status/1505587185629773834
I didn’t think anyone really understood how much contempt Trump has for his voters until I saw this. (sorry, a little off topic)
Not at all a criticism, and if someone looked at the whole blog they would agree with you, but I have to say it’s kind of funny that you vehemently deny being a Fox News person and then the post right below this one prominently features a tweet from Fox News.
Well, yes, but even Fox News isn’t invariably wrong. It’s an excellent clip so I grabbed it.
This harks back to the Intellectual Turing Test that Helen Staniland and latsot have brought up before. Adam Davidson is implying something like, “we know what you Gender Criticals are thinking because we’re thinking on a higher level than you, and we’re looking down at your thoughts.” But of course every argument involves both sides believing they’re on the higher plane of thinking. The neat thing about the Intellectual Turing Test is that it can help shine some light on whether one side really is more right than the other. And already, by the questions Adam has asked on Twitter and the replies he’s gotten, it’s clear that he’d fail the test: that is to say, if he was challenged to impersonate a “gender critical” person (I don’t love that term; I don’t think it’s quite accurate, but for lack of a better one, I use it for now, because it’s broadly understood to mean something like those of us on “our side”) and to replicate a believably gender critical line of argument in a debate, he would be detected as an impostor immediately. Latsot argued that we’re not so good at impersonating the other side either, even though most of the time we are indeed the ones intellectually looking down at them with exasperation, and he’s quite right, but the reason is more that they don’t really make intellectual arguments to begin with; they just use diversions like ad hominem most of the time, as evidenced with the terrible Aaron Rabinowitz “debate” on The Mess We’re In, Adam Davidson’s tweets here, and we just have a really hard time even mimicking that kind of voice.
I must be feeling cocky today, because I actually think I could do a spot-on impersonation of Adam Davidson; I think I’d pass that Intellectual Turing Test easily. I’d just load up my arguments with lots of assumptions that were never examined in the first place, like, for starters, that “trans people” are a coherent subtype of humans who all share an innate, material and undeniable quality of “transness,” and that anyone who doesn’t just take this as a fact is motivated by malevolence, ignorance, or both.
Adam Davidson has been reminding me of Aaron Rabinowitz all day. The same utter smugness and complete indifference to women.
I think we could change rule 2 to “people with penises” should not be housed in women’s jails. Seems to me that people who used to have penises could be considered on a case by case basis.
It is intellectually dishonest for him to imply that GC feminists say black people don’t deserve their jobs. I don’t know any GC feminists that say that, though I suppose there may be some out there, they just don’t travel in the same circles I do. In fact, I think many black people (and white people and people of any other skin tone) deserve better jobs than they have…and certainly better wages.
Beth, I’m not sure I agree with that. People that used to have penises still have different muscle mass and are bigger in general than females. And the moment you consider them “on a case by case basis”, any justification you come up with for allowing one and denying another will likely be thrown in the trash by the courts. I would support a separate prison for people who identify as women but are not, but not a woman’s prison. Women deserve better.
Arty @8 Good luck with that, I’m not so sure you could be unreasonable enough to do a satisfactory impersonation. The mindset of the TRA’s is not a reasonable one in the first place, it’s more of a cocksure morally superior sophistry. It’s not easily mimicable. Sure, you could get the bones of it right, but sooner or later you’d slip up and out yourself as an intelligent and reasonable person. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The foundations of good thinking are hard to disguise, it starts with common sense, and unless you can eliminate your natural talent for that, you’re doomed. :D
Sack @1 Good point. Davidson is obviously trying for an ad hominem attack with those questions. He wants some kind of background qualifications without providing any himself. Those are some shitty debate tactics. Don’t address the argument, that’s too difficult, instead try to discredit the person on other grounds. Classic fallaciousness.
“They want to say that trans people aren’t real and/or many black ppl don’t deserve their jobs.”
Two problems with this; 1. No one says trans people aren’t “real” ffs, they are just *biologically* not the sex they claim to be. Trans people obviously exist or we wouldn’t be having this kerfuffle, and 2. Conflating this with black people’s employment worthiness makes you a flaming racist.
This Davidson dude is quite the ignoramus.
Skelly @6 Explain to us what a “Fox News person” is. JFC…
Twiliter @ 13
I’m not sure I follow you there. I was characterizing Davidson as saying, roughly: “No, cancel culture isn’t people being threatened with losing their jobs, it’s something broader and by the way, where do you work, and do they approve of you saying these things, maybe I should contact them, hmm?” Trying to force a shift of the goal post while simultaneously taking a shot at the goal, maybe?
Sack @16 I’m seeing the argument as more of a personal attack rather than addressing the issue, along with the threatening aspect that you pointed out. It shouldn’t matter where one works.
Sack @16 In reference to this follow up tweet by Davidson that you posted above>>
“Also, where do you work?
Is it generally common in your workplace to share your views about other people’s gender?
It seems to me it would be a fairly narrow set of workplaces where it would be appropriate to discuss any thoughts about others’ gender identity.”
I don’t know. Impersonating a trans activist is only difficult inasmuch as I have little practice in it, so the rejoinders do not come fluently. A better test, I think, is one that does not depend so heavily on the subject’s ready wit and felicity of expression. Merely giving an account of the opposition’s view such that they agree with it and feel that it leaves out nothing important should be sufficient.
I am entirely certain that the average Genderist would fail this easier test, though.
I frequently feel like I have walked into the middle of some conversation.
“It’s self-evidently shameful to say that men don’t belong in women’s sports?”
Neither the copied tweet before that comment not the one following it had said it was “shameful to say that men don’t belong in women’s sports.”
To what are you responding?
I know neither tweet said that: that’s why I asked the question. He seems to be implying that it’s shameful, but he doesn’t spell it out.
About feeling as if you’ve walked into the middle of some conversation – well you have, of course, as we all have. This conversation has been going on for years, we’re all in the middle of it.
I don’t know. Given the way he’s interpreting “trans people aren’t real” — reasonable questions about prioritizing gender identity & extending women’s spaces — it’s probably not a stretch to guess that “many black people don’t deserve their jobs” could include reasonable questions about eliminating testing standards & having rigid hiring criteria. It’s the opposite of the Principle of Charity, the Straw Man.