Define “basic humanity”
Frustrating. I can’t find the source of the quoted passage, Google says it’s never heard of it, SEEN hasn’t so far answered my question. There’s an answer but I haven’t been able to find it yet.
Meanwhile – somebody said this:
“It can make them feel unsafe and unwelcome in an industry where I don’t think that’s the case. There’s a very small minority that speaks loudly about these topics, but largely it isn’t reflective of a wider view of people in publishing.”
I want to know more about this because I want to know who thinks recognizing the material reality of sex translates to calling into question the basic humanity of certain groups. I want to know who thinks that and I want to argue with that person about it. I want to grab this endless emotional blackmail by the throat and shake it until it promises to stop. Knowing a man is a man is not repeat not repeat NOT the same thing as denying the basic humanity of the man in question.
Trans activism has learned from the mistakes made by the Emperor in “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” They’ve made questioning their claims tantamount to eliminationism by tying them to their “basic humanity” as if their transness was as vital for their existence as water, food, and shelter, and that any doubt or pushback or criticism is as lethal as denial of the essentials of life. Had the Emperor and his courtiers worked out something like this in advance of his fateful procession, they would have primed the crowds to watch out for non-compliance. His subjects would have quickly served rough justice to the doubting youth, knowing that the full weight of the Emperor’s courts would have let them get away with it. The Emperor’s heralds would have proclaimed the righteousness of their justifiable anger, deployed in the defence of their Beloved and Marginalized Emperor.
TiMs aren’t “just trying to live their lives.”* They could have been , but when they force their way into women’s spaces, and take women’s resources and opportunities, they’ve stepped well beyond “just living their lives,” and have imposed their desires upon others (most of whom are women) who, under normal circumstances would be under no obligation to accede to their wishes. But trans activism has recruited its own Imperial power through the capture and corruption of government and commercial agencies and organizations, forcing compliance with trans demands.
Sure, it’s a great dodge, but on even casual inspection, it makes no sense. This is what makes the imposition without accountability so infuriating. It’s like fighting against smoke. You can’t land a punch that does any damage, and nobody who should be having to answer for this claim ever does.
*And some likely are, but we don’t hear about them.
Well said YNnB. You’re right about the trans people who really are struggling. Where exactly are all the activists and rights organisation applying their considerable funding and political/social capital in fighting for those trans people? They’re absent. Pretty much completely as far as I can tell. All that effort going into creating compliance by fear. All that effort going into taking from women. And as far as I can see, nothing of significance going to trans people who really need a hand up or help. It’s truely the trickledown theory of social activism.
I think the “basic humanity” claim is that if something you and only you can know about yourself is denied, then you’re being told you can’t know yourself at all, that other people know you but YOU don’t know you – and this makes your conscious existence superfluous. It’s like a child being hungry, saying they’re hungry, and an unfeeling mother telling them “no you’re not.” Only, in this case it’s worse. It’s someone saying “I’m Leo” and someone else saying “that’s Jessica.” The human being isn’t being treated like a separate agent. They’re being used as someone else’s prop.
When so many people passionately repeat a statement which makes so little sense, they’re usually thinking of some analogy which does make sense. Since this movement tends to infantalize its adherents, the best way to translate “denying their humanity” may be to think of what a child might be feeling when bossed around or ignored.
Of course, trans activism steals a lot of its discourse from the civil rights movement and the horrors of slavery. Slave dealers and owners would treat black slaves like chattel, denying their humanity. So it must be with trans people being told they’re still members of their sex — if you add in the frustration of a toddler.
That would fit, but of course, what sex people are isn’t something they and only they can know about themselves. Their thoughts and feelings on the subject can be, especially it they’re bad at explaining them, or not allowed to explain them, but the ontological reality can’t. What sex people are isn’t purely internal, isn’t purely subjective, isn’t a feeling as opposed to a physical set of facts.
The argument is at least as much about the claims regarding what they’re not as it is about what they claim they are. (I’m going to concentrate on trans identified males, as their demands and intrusions represent a greater threat and than those of trans identified females.) We are expected to deny the testimony of our eyes and ignore the male body that we can plainly see, and accept unreservedly a putative gender essence that is completely invisible. That’s two demands made of us right off the bat. This is followed by demands for counter-intuitive, reality-denying language use, and access to the rights and facilities to which they believe their “gender identity” entitles them. Top that off with the charge that questioning any of it is fueled by eliminationist intent. They can’t (or refuse to) decouple these claims and demands from their “existence” or “identity.” Frankly, that’s not our problem, and wouldn’t be if they weren’t bullies enabled and empowered by the organs of the state, and the wealth and influence of vast numbers of corporations.
Sastra, that sounds very possible, but I wonder if it’s really all that sophisticated. The idea of denying their basic humanity is something that was already so present in Civil Rights, because many white people refused to consider people of color fully human. Jews were not considered fully human in Nazi Germany (and other places). Women weren’t considered fully human by many men, and by the law.
This looks to me like another one of those things where they just lifted something out of previous movements, dusted it off, and pretended it fit them. Because all these other movements were successful, and because these ideas are familiar, they are co-opted to the language of trans…just like the equating of understanding biological sex with racism and Nazism.
In short, another example of how they appropriate other movements, using the language of marginalization to describe people who are, mostly. middle-class white males with their luxury delusions that other people must validate if they don’t want to be bashed over the head with a barbed wire covered baseball bat.
But not Bruce, the emperor didn’t have the benefit of decades of popular media spreading the lie that “You can be anything you want to be” (as long as you are a good* person) all in the name of being kind. It’s the well meaning lies that do the most harm.
*Who doesn’t ‘think they’re a “good person”. Certainly not the worst of us.