Guest post: Tactics common in abusive relationships make bad activism
Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on All the poles are reversed.
If there is no difference between a cis woman and a trans woman, if “trans women are women” – then it shouldn’t make any difference.
But of course, there is a difference.
Anyway the more I see these stories, the more this runs through my head:
You’ve heard of TERFs, you’ve heard of SWERFs, now introducing the hot new radical feminism, WERFs.
That’s right, Women Exclusionary Radical Feminism, for when you want to call yourself a feminist but think the only women whose voices matter, are those women who have penises.
Do you think it is okay to threaten 60 year-old-women with baseball bats while still claiming to be a radical feminist? Being a WERF is right up your alley.
Are you basically a frat boy who thinks putting on a dress means you get to call lesbians who don’t want to have sex with you bigots? Congratulations, you’re a WERF.
Do you present yourself as the most insulting possible parody of a female, with the barest essentials are “a willing asshole, an open mouth and blank, blank eyes” and think this makes you more legitimate than someone who was actually born female? You’re a WERF mate.
Do you think that harassing female athletes for having doubts about whether male bodied athletes should be allowed to compete in women’s sports is a good thing to do? That’s why you’re WERF.
Do you think you threatening to commit suicide when feminists say things you disagree with makes their words tantamount to violence? WERF.
Now note: Not all trans people are WERFs. Not all WERFs are trans. Most trans people are much like most other people, and not dickheads about it. One can argue in favour of trans inclusion in women’s sports without trying to silence the opposition.
One can legitimately argue in favour of “trans women are women” without harassment campaigns against the opposition, and calling people bigots because they’re not on the same page as you.
It is perfectly possible to do these things, but doing them requires actually having enough respect for women to be willing to listen to what they have to say. It requires respecting women having freedom to speech, even speech that you might find hurtful.
It requires arguments not dictates. And those are very rare from the trans activist community.
This is not a matter of simple disagreements between the TERF and WERF movements right now – it is a set of tactics which are common in abusive relationships being turned into activism.
We see gaslighting going on where women are dismissed as being crazy for having concerns. We see threats of suicide used as a silencing tactic. We see outright violence occasionally and a lot of harassment.
We see the idealisation of what it is to be female – in a way that a lot of feminists would regard as outright misogynist. We then see feminists who object to this being threatened.
Years ago my view on trans rights was this: I’m not in support of having a situation where people have their genitals checked before they go to the bathroom. I wouldn’t want somebody checking I’ve got a penis before going to a men’s restroom, and urinals are a lot more public than cubicles.
I can respect that people disagree – but I think in practical terms for the day-to-day, trans women should be treated as being women because nobody wants anybody going and looking up people’s skirts or in people’s pants to check.
But my view has warped. I still think nobody wants to institute the gender-police, but honestly trans activism has gone so far that it is now unsupportable.
I don’t believe in “double vision” – I think people are people. The oppressed are not suddenly granted super-perception by being oppressed, people are people, we see what we see, and we all make assumptions of varying accuracy.
My country has been governed by identity politics since 1994, and the result has been some of the highest rates of murder and rape in the world, a unemployment rate of over 29%, xenophobia, our 2019 GDP growth was 0.1%, and we’ve not even had any movement on those identity issues.
I still believe that Thabo Mbeki is the worst president South Africa has had. Not just because of the AIDS crisis, but because of how he handled the crime crisis. Mbeki responded to that crisis by calling the reporters who highlighted it racist.
It’s not worked because it doesn’t treat people as people, but as identities – so we’ve got a government that thinks it has “double vision” and thus ignores a lot of expertise from the old oppressor class, who had a greater chance to become experts due that oppression.
Nobody had “double vision” and now we can’t keep the lights on. Don’t assume you know better because you think you’re oppressed, at best you’re just as informed as your oppressor, maybe just on different issues, at worst you might not even be oppressed but rather feel oppressed and be justifying your own vile behaviour by that. This is why conversations and working together matter, why you should be prepared to listen even when it is something that you find deeply personally offensive.
It is also why you shouldn’t justify things by claiming you’re “punching up”, the people who are willing to tolerate really getting punched aren’t that far up, and all too often are actually too far down to retaliate. There is a reason why in any social justice activism, women are generally more in the firing line than men.
And this is why the trans activist community is part of what is driving situations where leftwing parties are losing – because this dictatorial style where everyone who disagrees is a bigot? It breaks countries. You don’t have to converse politely, mockery and all of that is fine, but don’t think just shutting down the opposition is going to do away with the opposition, you might just be doing away with your support.
Sounds like it should be a menu item at Red Lobster.
Well said, Bruce Gorton. Nicely analyzed. Your evolving trans position sounds very much like my own.
As it happens, Crip Dyke has a post up that basically says ‘don’t try to understand trans (because trans cannot be understood; CD’s view, not mine!), just accept us’. Not at all like the standard-issue domestic abuser who makes it clear that he won’t be changing any time soon so just learn to live with him and stop complaining about the abuse – that’s just who he is, that’s all.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pervertjustice/2020/01/15/do-not-try-to-understand-me
I’m only paragraph into that screed, and I’m already thinking “What drugs is this person on?”
I mean:
For the most part we don’t care about the victims of pyramid schemes, we think “A fool and their money.” It isn’t the misery of the victims that makes us ban this stuff, or putting ourselves in their shoes, particularly considering how the victims can be quite definite about supporting these schemes even as they go under.
No, we ban pyramid schemes because they can in fact crash entire economies, much as they did to Albania, and we would rather that didn’t happen to ours. Its far more to do with self interest than empathy.
Understanding is a shitload more important than empathy when talking about financial crimes, because you kind of have to understand how the scheme works to craft legislation against it. You can’t even identify a pyramid scheme without getting into its mechanics.
Eish.
Related: entering female competition, beating a field of people much smaller than you, and then rubbing their faces in your win. Major WERF indicator.
That’s the open secret of arguments about public toilet access – no one is suggesting we post police at every public facility, and trans women that go in and do their business without making a big deal of it will probably be ignored, even if they don’t pass as female very well. Maintaining rules of sex segregation in toilets will rarely impact the average trans person; they are there to act as a barrier against those that are going there to creep on women.
On that note, did you guys know PZ has stealthily endorsed murder? Look at this farcical comment thread, and see who PZ bans and who he keeps in the fold:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/11/11/you-heard-the-man-up-your-game/#comment-2020835
This is another page being taken from the playbook of religion: define the thing you are defending as undefinable, ineffable; that way you can never be pinned down to anything concrete and your religion can never be rebutted.
If Crip Dyke is correct, then how can any two trans people claim to be similar in their feelings? Or speak for other trans people because ‘they know how it feels’?
Precisely. Also, if Crip Dyke is correct, how the HELL can he know that anyone is “cis”?
Special knowledge?