“It is genocidal to”
Jason Stanley is continuing his project of explaining that women are genocidal.
Did he pause to think about the possibility that women might have good reasons to refuse to be “inclusive” of men in all circumstances? In rape shelters and toilets and feminism? No, of course he didn’t, he simply went on telling the world that women who want to be able to say no to men are intent on genocide of trans people.
What is that supposed to mean? What community? Any community? All communities? What about the community of Boko Haram for instance? That’s a community that’s very much “linked with” rape. What about fraternities? What about rapists? The community of rapists is linked with rape. What is it about the word “community” that makes it forbidden and unacceptable to link it with rape, even when it is explicitly linked with rape?
Again, what’s that supposed to mean? Some “communities” are existential threats to children. Communities that exploit child labor for instance, communities that prey on children sexually, communities that pass laws that impoverish and exploit children – I could go on.
He can’t really be as stupid as this. Yet there he is, putting the stupid out there for the world to gape at.
I think he must be newly indoctrinated into the trans cult, it’s not like this hasn’t been going on for years now, but he comes off as a newbie. He probably thinks the exhorbitant terms make him sound educated, but the reasoning behind the words is pathetic at best. Maybe some people are impressed with his pseudo-profundity, but it reminds me of Judith Butler. It’s gobbledygook. Supposedly he wrote books on propaganda and fascism also, but he obviously doesn’t understand either concept. He must have fooled a lot of people along the way to be in a professorship, or even been awarded a degree. Otherwise he’s almost too absurd to respond to.
Speaking of Bjarte’s “unstated premises and impossibly sloppy inferences” (which, by the way, I’m going to use all the time now), I can’t wrap my head around the fact so many people think slapping the label trans on a man makes him no longer a man at all. It’s just an attribute some men have! Actually it’s not even that: it’s a vague word that suggests someone might have one of any number of not-even-closely-related attributes, such as having a kinky thing for crossdressing, being a homosexual who’s dealing with a lot of internalized homophobia, trying to treat acute gender dysphoria, or just being a narcissist or a bully or a predator who likes the power the label gives him.
Talk about an unstated premise! It’s like saying Sagittariuses are no longer men. Excuse me, this person was born between November 22 and December 21? That’s a separate kind of human. Not a man. Different thing. Fire sign. Brazen spirit. Driven by wanderlust. Effortlessly magnetic. Extra super special. Whole different set of pronouns for ’em. We don’t have specific prisons or washrooms or sports categories for Sagittariuses yet so they can just go wherever they want. But don’t worry: the zodiac says they’re “brutally honest”, so you can trust ’em.
It’s fucking madness!
I guess a part of the problem is that trans is presented as an adjective, a modifier to the noun it’s attached to, but of course when a man slaps the adjective trans on himself, he also swaps his noun for “woman.” I think that word change plays a big part in people’s inability to parse the concept of what trans is. They infer that if we’ve changed the noun we must therefore have changed the category of thing. Talk about an impossibly sloppy inference!
Translation: I posted something online that was troll-level stupid and was taken aback by the number of people pointing out just how stupid it was, so I’ve decided to pretend that the people responding were “attacking” trans identified males instead of simply complaining about my stupidity and cluelessness. I’ll paint this as fascist bigotry against trans people instead of exasperated incredulity that I’ve been given a professorship at Yale. Or anywhere.
To be fair, he is a small community.
Ha!
“…I was taken aback by the escalation and intensity of rhetoric online…” The very next tweet: “It is genocidal to link a community with rape by repeated association.” What a goddamn prat.
WHAT f*ing “threat to trans women”?
Neither you, not anyone else, has posted about any “threat to trans women” in “quite some time,” for the very simple reason that there isn’t any such “threat.” Not getting your way, and then having a tantrum about it (accompanied by, well, actual threats to women) is not the same thing as a “threat to trans women.” You’ve got the threats going entirely the wrong way.