Guest post: Performative indeed
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on A different story.
Several Sussex colleagues publicly denounced her on social media, although strangely, she says, not to her face. “No peer ever said to me: ‘Look, I really object to what you’re saying and I’d like to discuss it with you.’ They immediately went to Defcon 1: ‘She’s a bigot… arguing for single-sex spaces is like the Jim Crow laws [that historically enforced racial segregation in the American south].’” She remains fascinated by the performative aspects of social media debate. “The important thing is to show your tribe that you have the right morals and you could show that by saying, ‘I’m not with her.’”
Performative indeed. Just like India Willoughby’s faux geniality in and around the radio debate, followed by social media transperbolic accusations of “genocide.” The impersonal distance offered by the interposing technological channel allows and encourages extremism that would be stilted and inappropriate in personal, face to face meeting. You’re less likely to deploy boilerplate sloganeering (or a bullhorn) in an actual discussion with another person, than you are when playing for an audience of fellow true believers, where both the message and intended recipients are completely different. A genuine expression of hurt, or a sincere request for understanding and sympathy from someone you feel has wronged you, is not at all the same as a pearl-clutching rallying of the troops to come to your defence. One behaves differently in front of witnesses than in front of an audience.
There is always the danger of “our side” doing the same, though I daresay there seem to be few examples of this behaviour that I’ve seen coming from the feminist or gender critical side. The fact that trans activists must twist and misrepresent even the mildest statements in support of women’s spaces and boundaries into TERF “dog whistles” that are in reality denials of trans “existence,” and calls for trans “elimination,” is a pretty good indication of the fact they have no better evidence of explicit feminist malevolence. If they had any such evidence, they would use it.
Best of all is a statement that is blatantly, manifestly false. Like 1 equals 3. Or trans women are women. If you claim to believe something like that, they you are committing yourself to the group that says that, and burning your bridges to the reality-based community.
And at that point, Stock’s colleagues stopped being colleagues and became Inquisitors, more interested in proclaiming their own orthodoxy (and protecting their own skin) than in coming to any sort of understanding or compromise. To compromise with Evil is itself Evil.
I suspect that the reason that there’s little to no evidence of this kind of virtue signalling on our side is that our side is still relatively small (at least in public). But I’m not sure — the true TRA side may actually be quite small in real numbers, as well.
Yes, I believe that both of these statements are true. The vast public outside of gender critical and trans activist social media probably has little to no idea about the discussions hapening within and between these two camps. The GC side is all for spilling this issue in public, as it is a way to do an end run around institutionally captured organizations acting outside public attention and accountability. This why trans activists have to clean up these “spills” and characterize them as the actions of a small number of right-wing bigots funded by right-wing money. Daylight, public scrutiny, and clear language, interfere with the secret, quiet campaign to erase women from independent, female-centered political organization and action. Keeping the reality of the consequences of this agenda away from the ignorant and indifferent many who are happy to “go along to get along” is the only way they can achieve their ends, if only for a short while.
It helps “our side” that the position we are defending is backed by material reality itself. It’s not the “blatant lie” which is, as Steven pointed out in the “A different story” thread, the sign of a fealty which must be demonstrated over and over again, a belief that perforce simultaneously results, in and denies, the real damages it causes to the health, safety, and well-being of women and girls. The guiding principle that the blatant lies are designed to conceal and protect is that the feelings of men are more important than the lives of women. It does not help the “other side” that the positions and policies they espouse have already caused actual harm to real life, flesh and blood women. Like the existence of child-raping piests, the facts of this ongoing harm must be kept secret, must remain hidden. They are passed off as wild, unlikely, far-fetched, paranoid, fear-mongering imaginings (unlike the completely believable charges of incipient Trans Genocide that are a constant refrain in this “debate.”) The actual results of their stated goals demonstrate the dangers of their agenda.
While professing the impossible is a clear signal of loyalty and obedience within “community” circles, having to defend blatant falsehoods in the real world is hard work. While there is relative safety on social media, there is no block button in real life. Given the strength of their “arguments”, “NO DEBATE” is a good strategy for them. Complete silence might be an even better option, as it can help prevent own goals. On more than one occasion I’ve seen trans activists or their allies slip and make some statement that shows that that they actually know what is real. Dillahunty’s “I’m just not a bigot and I’m able to tell the difference between biological sex and gender, which is a social construct,” is a perfect example. Not everyone on Team Trans is as invested in (or as glibly conversant with) all aspects of this delusionary belief system. Their resulting misteps help make our arguments for us. Beyond the simplistic, thought-terminating mantra of TWAW, the beliefs under the “trans umbrella” are so convoluted, contradictory, and inconsistant that it’s hard for opponents to keep track of them, let alone for believers to espouse and express them coherently. Countering these ideas, though, is easy. The GC position requires no mental gymnastics, no translations into Newspeak, no self-policing to avoid Error. This is a strength and clarity that genderists can but envy. Whose ideas are easier to parse, Judith Butler’s or Jane Clare Jones?
Today I found this cartoon which aptly captures the overwhelming majority of moral posturing via social media.
http://www.angryflower.com/1395.html
Well put, Not Bruce; both the guest post and your comment. I like the clarity of your writing, it help to clear a path through the spray of manure.
Thank you. I find writing things helps to clarify ideas for myself. Sometimes I’ll make connections I’ve not made before as I write. I’m glad you find my maunderings useful!
I’m sure there are plenty who would consider what I write a spray of manure. I’m glad you don’t.