Women are constantly stating, clearly and with evidence, exactly what our positions are.
But the other side refuses to listen, shouts us down when we try to speak, tells everyone else not to listen, lies about what we’re saying, and now lies that we’re saying anything at all.
Unfortunately, their voices are very much louder than ours.
“People who believe X are bad. People who are in group Y are bad. Therefore, people who believe X must be in group Y.”
It’s the kind of thinking that leads people into stuff like QAnon — “Democrats are bad, child molesters are bad, therefore Democrats must be child molesters.”
If we are talking about what a woman is, then we are talking about sex and not gender. But if were to talk about gender, all those other cultures and their varying ideas of gender only go to show that gender is a matter of culture. This means it is malleable, and it is temporary, just like any other cultural attitude. All the more reason to focus on sex instead.
The mental contortions that some blokes will put themselves through in order to get inside womens’ dunnies (as distinct fom their underwear) is truly mind boggling.
It looks like there doesn’t need to be any external referent. It’s not like gender ideology has much grounding in the real world, so that’s par for the course. It’s what they tell each other, so they can righteously ignore critics. It’s how NO DEBATE becomes Holy Work, and questions and criticism is Genocidal Bigotry. When material reality is itself a dogwhistle, it does not do to dwell on it, or refer to it very often.
This why it is vital to them to control who gets heard; it only takes one counterexample to disprove the “they’re all right wing religious bigots” claim. This is a weakness of the LALALALA WE CAN”T HEAR YOU! YOU’RE ALL EVIL!! DIE, SCUM!!! strategy. For it to work, you’re always having to keep your opponent’s message from getting through, you’re always trying to plug leaks in the dam. Harder to do with a flood.
Many (most?) people outside of the hothouse world of social media are completely unaware of the genderist/gender critical debate. For many, their first exposure is going to be around women’s sports. Fortunately our position doesn’t depend upon mental gymnastics and redefining the words “man” and “woman.” Not everyone hearing of these issues for the first time is always going to be ready for mental gymnastics or language overhaul. They’re not going to be pre-equipped with the trans-encoder ring that most media outlets will be using. We are at a disadvantage when media outlets use “transwoman,” as that word tries to hide “cheating” and “unfairness.” So we must use plain language only. No “preferred pronouns,” no redifinitions. We don’t have to work to keep our “narrative” straight. We just have to look at the reality of the situation, not anyone’s need for silence or validation.
YNNB? @ 7 – You say, “…our position doesn’t depend upon mental gymnastics and redefining the words “man” and “woman.”” Aaron Rabinowitz, the host of EtV, partook in an online debate/discussion recently regarding these issues, and when asked to provide his definition of the word “woman”, replied that the question itself was “a thought-stopping cliche”. Not that a pat statement like “trans women are women” is a thought-stopping cliche, no, but the very question “What is your definition of the word ‘woman?'”, is.
They don’t understand the distinction between being gender critical and being gender enforcing. Right wing conservatives and white nationalists are anti-trans because they think people’s behavior and appearance should be determined by their sex. Men can’t have long hair, wear nail polish, and wear dresses because that violated gender norms. Being gender critical says a man can wear a dress, nail polish, etc., and should be free to do so, but that doesn’t make him a woman, and he shouldn’t have to undergo any sort of transition to live his life in a gender nonconforming way. This is why I have a lot of trouble aligning with right wing activists on trans issues. They want to beat little boys into giving up sparkly things, we want little boys to wear and play with whatever they want without people telling them that makes them a girl.
This is why I have a lot of trouble aligning with right wing activists on trans issues. They want to beat little boys into giving up sparkly things, we want little boys to wear and play with whatever they want without people telling them that makes them a girl.
There’s more trouble than that, because many conservatives on the right DON’T want to beat little boys for wearing sparkly things. Some of them think gender nonconformity is a stage, and some of them don’t care if it is. Unless we’re defining “right wing activists” as “those who beat little boys for wearing sparkly things,” in which case there are “activists who don’t consider themselves to be on the left” who might be worth aligning with, and might be present in sufficient numbers. Conservatives have degrees and variations, same as liberals.
Holms @ 10 – I went back to check, and Rabinowitz uses the term “thought-terminating cliche” to refer to the question, and it is my mistake that I used the wrong words. But he still claims that the question constitutes such a cliche. Anyway, the entire back-and-forth is at this site, Rabinowitz’s claim is in letter #11:
I read someone on Ovarit the other day suggesting a way around the tedious ‘what is a woman?’ conversation. I haven’t tried it yet but I may if I’m in a situation where it’s appropriate. Ask the person if the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ signify two different categories (if they don’t think so, then I guess they have more problems than you can productively deal with). If they say yes, then ask what distinguishes the two, if they are two different categories.
To be a white Christian nationalist, one would presumably have to be white, Christian, and nationalist. There are so many GC people who don’t fit any of the criteria, and so many more that don’t fit at least one or two, that the statement is utterly false. These attempts to shift the political goalposts are ridiculous and seek to distract people from the actual conflict between biological reality and their phony ideology. Of course it’s meant as an insult, but it doesn’t achieve that if there is no element of truth to it. The real insult is thay they project their own transparent stupidity on others.
“Thought-terminating cliche” is a verbal meme via Christopher Hitchens by the way. I did a couple of posts about the exchange between Andy Lewis/Le canard noir and Void-Rabinowitz last week.
The expression “thought-terminating cliche” predates Hitchens, though. In Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (1961), on the subject of “loading the language”, Robert Jay Lifton writes:
The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis. […] Totalist language, then, is repetitiously centered on all-encompassing jargon, prematurely abstract, highly categorical, relentlessly judging, and to anyone but its most devoted advocate, deadly dull: in Lionel Trilling’s phrase, “the language of nonthought.”
Questions are the genesis of rational thought, not its terminus. The very first step, as we learned from the Greeks, is to define our terms. To do so answers the question, “What is the definition of this?” That asking for terminological specificity might be considered antithetical to inquiry puts this mind poison squarely in the realm of oppressive religion. Even Christianity doesn’t immediately damn the doubter, opting instead to bless the credulous more.
Women are constantly stating, clearly and with evidence, exactly what our positions are.
But the other side refuses to listen, shouts us down when we try to speak, tells everyone else not to listen, lies about what we’re saying, and now lies that we’re saying anything at all.
Unfortunately, their voices are very much louder than ours.
So many people are determined to make rational debate a complete waste of time.
“People who believe X are bad. People who are in group Y are bad. Therefore, people who believe X must be in group Y.”
It’s the kind of thinking that leads people into stuff like QAnon — “Democrats are bad, child molesters are bad, therefore Democrats must be child molesters.”
If we are talking about what a woman is, then we are talking about sex and not gender. But if were to talk about gender, all those other cultures and their varying ideas of gender only go to show that gender is a matter of culture. This means it is malleable, and it is temporary, just like any other cultural attitude. All the more reason to focus on sex instead.
The mental contortions that some blokes will put themselves through in order to get inside womens’ dunnies (as distinct fom their underwear) is truly mind boggling.
Now I’m afraid to scratch myself. What could be under there?!
It looks like there doesn’t need to be any external referent. It’s not like gender ideology has much grounding in the real world, so that’s par for the course. It’s what they tell each other, so they can righteously ignore critics. It’s how NO DEBATE becomes Holy Work, and questions and criticism is Genocidal Bigotry. When material reality is itself a dogwhistle, it does not do to dwell on it, or refer to it very often.
This why it is vital to them to control who gets heard; it only takes one counterexample to disprove the “they’re all right wing religious bigots” claim. This is a weakness of the LALALALA WE CAN”T HEAR YOU! YOU’RE ALL EVIL!! DIE, SCUM!!! strategy. For it to work, you’re always having to keep your opponent’s message from getting through, you’re always trying to plug leaks in the dam. Harder to do with a flood.
Many (most?) people outside of the hothouse world of social media are completely unaware of the genderist/gender critical debate. For many, their first exposure is going to be around women’s sports. Fortunately our position doesn’t depend upon mental gymnastics and redefining the words “man” and “woman.” Not everyone hearing of these issues for the first time is always going to be ready for mental gymnastics or language overhaul. They’re not going to be pre-equipped with the trans-encoder ring that most media outlets will be using. We are at a disadvantage when media outlets use “transwoman,” as that word tries to hide “cheating” and “unfairness.” So we must use plain language only. No “preferred pronouns,” no redifinitions. We don’t have to work to keep our “narrative” straight. We just have to look at the reality of the situation, not anyone’s need for silence or validation.
YNNB? @ 7 – You say, “…our position doesn’t depend upon mental gymnastics and redefining the words “man” and “woman.”” Aaron Rabinowitz, the host of EtV, partook in an online debate/discussion recently regarding these issues, and when asked to provide his definition of the word “woman”, replied that the question itself was “a thought-stopping cliche”. Not that a pat statement like “trans women are women” is a thought-stopping cliche, no, but the very question “What is your definition of the word ‘woman?'”, is.
They don’t understand the distinction between being gender critical and being gender enforcing. Right wing conservatives and white nationalists are anti-trans because they think people’s behavior and appearance should be determined by their sex. Men can’t have long hair, wear nail polish, and wear dresses because that violated gender norms. Being gender critical says a man can wear a dress, nail polish, etc., and should be free to do so, but that doesn’t make him a woman, and he shouldn’t have to undergo any sort of transition to live his life in a gender nonconforming way. This is why I have a lot of trouble aligning with right wing activists on trans issues. They want to beat little boys into giving up sparkly things, we want little boys to wear and play with whatever they want without people telling them that makes them a girl.
A question terminates thought? What a crazy idea.
EAva #9 wrote:
There’s more trouble than that, because many conservatives on the right DON’T want to beat little boys for wearing sparkly things. Some of them think gender nonconformity is a stage, and some of them don’t care if it is. Unless we’re defining “right wing activists” as “those who beat little boys for wearing sparkly things,” in which case there are “activists who don’t consider themselves to be on the left” who might be worth aligning with, and might be present in sufficient numbers. Conservatives have degrees and variations, same as liberals.
Holms @ 10 – I went back to check, and Rabinowitz uses the term “thought-terminating cliche” to refer to the question, and it is my mistake that I used the wrong words. But he still claims that the question constitutes such a cliche. Anyway, the entire back-and-forth is at this site, Rabinowitz’s claim is in letter #11:
https://letter.wiki/conversation/1232
TRAs: You can’t tell someone’s gender by looking at them, and you have to believe them without qualification when they tell you what it is.
ALSO TRAs: GC people are Christian nationalists, even if they don’t think they are.
I read someone on Ovarit the other day suggesting a way around the tedious ‘what is a woman?’ conversation. I haven’t tried it yet but I may if I’m in a situation where it’s appropriate. Ask the person if the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ signify two different categories (if they don’t think so, then I guess they have more problems than you can productively deal with). If they say yes, then ask what distinguishes the two, if they are two different categories.
To be a white Christian nationalist, one would presumably have to be white, Christian, and nationalist. There are so many GC people who don’t fit any of the criteria, and so many more that don’t fit at least one or two, that the statement is utterly false. These attempts to shift the political goalposts are ridiculous and seek to distract people from the actual conflict between biological reality and their phony ideology. Of course it’s meant as an insult, but it doesn’t achieve that if there is no element of truth to it. The real insult is thay they project their own transparent stupidity on others.
“Thought-terminating cliche” is a verbal meme via Christopher Hitchens by the way. I did a couple of posts about the exchange between Andy Lewis/Le canard noir and Void-Rabinowitz last week.
The expression “thought-terminating cliche” predates Hitchens, though. In Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism (1961), on the subject of “loading the language”, Robert Jay Lifton writes:
Ohhh, my mistake. Thank you Bjarte. I think I need to read that.
It’s definitely worth reading. That should be “Thought Reform” btw., not “Through! Reform” :-S
Aw, it would have been such a zingy title!
My husband was quite startled when I told him I was a white Christian nationalist. He wasn’t surprised about the white part.
Questions are the genesis of rational thought, not its terminus. The very first step, as we learned from the Greeks, is to define our terms. To do so answers the question, “What is the definition of this?” That asking for terminological specificity might be considered antithetical to inquiry puts this mind poison squarely in the realm of oppressive religion. Even Christianity doesn’t immediately damn the doubter, opting instead to bless the credulous more.
In other words, yikes.