Heterosexual white female Nora Berenstain of the University of Texas accused Tuvel of being a violent perpetrator:
“Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman [Bruce Jenner]. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege.”
This was common back when I was in high school. A bunch of us kids convinced ourselves that we were straight outta Compton. It was so wack, but we had lots fun of breakdancing and threatening to bust a cap in each other. This was before Columbine, and in Canada. The accent was hard for us to get right.
So, now it's called transracial, and we're no longer allowed to dis it? Sure, ok, whatever.
This seems like one of those cases where the amount of heat coming off the subject is so large relative to the actual event, and the difference in arguments so narrow, that there must be some deeper unspoken motivation.
I don't believe the people making these arguments against Tuvel have chosen their position because of those arguments. I think there is some other political/power-oriented motivation, and the arguments are used instrumentally.
Any thoughts on what that source motivation might be? I have some notions but I don't know this sphere in detail.
---
Just speculating, one might think the academics want to avoid any change that would weaken the power the social justice race-guilt narrative has to control white men. They're afraid that if transracialism becomes accepted, whites will identify as non-whites to claim their privileges (e.g. affirmative action, argumentative deference, etc).
Just imagine millions of white men identifying as mixed-race and then everyone having to accept that on pain of being called racists or transracialphobic. That's a nightmare scenario for the social justice crowd because it takes away their main permanent advantage in the culture wars: the ability to call people racist.
But... that would seemingly also apply to transgenderism. So why the difference?
Maybe transgenderism isn't considered a threat because identifying as a woman is too much of a jump for a normal man. A dude doesn't want to act like a woman, even if it helps him get hired at Intel. It would ruin his status and sexual appeal. You have to dress like a woman, and maybe even take hormones. It's just too weird. But simply identifying as mixed-race would be much easier for a man to do without changing any behavior or losing status. (Heck, I've met lots of white->black quasi-transracial kids from the suburbs who love gangsta rap... They're halfway there already.)
At the same time, the academics may like transgenderism because it helps to weaken the public belief in traditional gender roles. It's perfect social constructionism: If everyone can be a man/woman, man/woman have no roles, no characteristics, nothing. Masculine and feminine become no more than fashion statements. Transracialism lacks this "advantage" because the notion of racial social roles was already rightly destroyed a long time ago.
I used to sort of laugh at this kind of thing. Ok, people who believe weird things are fighting with each other.
Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender." What does that even mean? There are two genders. Sometimes, people from one gender decide to identify with another gender. Fine. Men who believe they are women can go in the women's room and vice versa. No need to invent the concept of "all gender."
So now I no longer find this funny. I read about transracialism and now I am worried this is also going to become mainstream and I am going to get publicly persecuted for questioning that as well.
America has lost it's mind. Really.
When do we actually start pushing back against this and begin saying: "No, you can't be transracial, that is a dumb idea and this is an idiotic thing to even entertain and I am not going to allow you to pretend this is real science."
>Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender." What does that even mean?
Gender neutral? To make a historical comparison, consider race segregated bathrooms. At one time we had "white" bathrooms and "colored" bathrooms. Now we just have "all race" bathrooms. There are some people who think we should do the same with gender discrimination. Some (myself included) say we should do this even if not for transfolk.
California's bill (as I understand it) does not go nearly this far. Instead, it only requires that all single-occupancy bathrooms be gender neutral; and I have yet to meet a single person who even pretends to understand why he have gendered single occupancy bathrooms.
> I have yet to meet a single person who even pretends to understand why he have gendered single occupancy bathrooms.
If there's space for two single-occupancy bathrooms, I think most people prefer it. Women don't like putting the seat down and think pee on the floor is pure carelessness. Men don't like putting the seat down and are grossed out by period blood. If it means the bathroom has a urinal, even if single-occupancy, I think most men would prefer that.
This is overstated. Most people would prefer the optionality of using more bathrooms, and anecdotally I've noticed people ignoring gender designations on single-occupancy bathrooms.
I don't know if you mean to but its kinda funny that you sound like one of the witch hunters! Being transracial doesn't seem hard to understand to me. It just seems vapid and antagonistic.
> Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender."
I don't believe you. I don't believe that if I walk into an Applebee's in Modesto, the "Men" and "Women" signs on the bathrooms are both replaced with "All Gender." Ditto for multi-stall bathrooms in, say, a courthouse.
I guess that's the point of her article - that a man waking up and deciding to be a woman has as much legitimacy as a white guy deciding that he's black.
Ie if you accept one, you have to accept the other.
>Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender."
Citation needed.
>There are two genders. Sometimes, people from one gender decide to identify with another gender. Fine. Men who believe they are women can go in the women's room and vice versa. No need to invent the concept of "all gender."
Binary gender [1],[2] and gendered bathrooms [3] are actually much more modern than the concept of a gender spectrum.
>["]I am not going to allow you to pretend this is real science."
Who is pretending this is real science? This is a rhetorical paper in a journal of philosophy.
Maybe provoking a controversy like this is an indicator that a paper in this part of academia has succeeded.
They aren't pursuing economic value or understanding of nature; they're examining the social world we're living in. If the author had missed her target, the paper would likely get no attention. Looking back at history, anybody who made claims that were ahead of their time would likely be proud to be able to say, “I caused an uproar when I said it”.
18 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] threadI'll just paste the following part:
Heterosexual white female Nora Berenstain of the University of Texas accused Tuvel of being a violent perpetrator:
“Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman [Bruce Jenner]. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege.”
Words fail me.
how is that a thing?
So, now it's called transracial, and we're no longer allowed to dis it? Sure, ok, whatever.
I don't believe the people making these arguments against Tuvel have chosen their position because of those arguments. I think there is some other political/power-oriented motivation, and the arguments are used instrumentally.
Any thoughts on what that source motivation might be? I have some notions but I don't know this sphere in detail.
---
Just speculating, one might think the academics want to avoid any change that would weaken the power the social justice race-guilt narrative has to control white men. They're afraid that if transracialism becomes accepted, whites will identify as non-whites to claim their privileges (e.g. affirmative action, argumentative deference, etc).
Just imagine millions of white men identifying as mixed-race and then everyone having to accept that on pain of being called racists or transracialphobic. That's a nightmare scenario for the social justice crowd because it takes away their main permanent advantage in the culture wars: the ability to call people racist.
But... that would seemingly also apply to transgenderism. So why the difference?
Maybe transgenderism isn't considered a threat because identifying as a woman is too much of a jump for a normal man. A dude doesn't want to act like a woman, even if it helps him get hired at Intel. It would ruin his status and sexual appeal. You have to dress like a woman, and maybe even take hormones. It's just too weird. But simply identifying as mixed-race would be much easier for a man to do without changing any behavior or losing status. (Heck, I've met lots of white->black quasi-transracial kids from the suburbs who love gangsta rap... They're halfway there already.)
At the same time, the academics may like transgenderism because it helps to weaken the public belief in traditional gender roles. It's perfect social constructionism: If everyone can be a man/woman, man/woman have no roles, no characteristics, nothing. Masculine and feminine become no more than fashion statements. Transracialism lacks this "advantage" because the notion of racial social roles was already rightly destroyed a long time ago.
This feels like a rough thesis though.
Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender." What does that even mean? There are two genders. Sometimes, people from one gender decide to identify with another gender. Fine. Men who believe they are women can go in the women's room and vice versa. No need to invent the concept of "all gender."
So now I no longer find this funny. I read about transracialism and now I am worried this is also going to become mainstream and I am going to get publicly persecuted for questioning that as well.
America has lost it's mind. Really.
When do we actually start pushing back against this and begin saying: "No, you can't be transracial, that is a dumb idea and this is an idiotic thing to even entertain and I am not going to allow you to pretend this is real science."
Now would be good.
Gender neutral? To make a historical comparison, consider race segregated bathrooms. At one time we had "white" bathrooms and "colored" bathrooms. Now we just have "all race" bathrooms. There are some people who think we should do the same with gender discrimination. Some (myself included) say we should do this even if not for transfolk.
California's bill (as I understand it) does not go nearly this far. Instead, it only requires that all single-occupancy bathrooms be gender neutral; and I have yet to meet a single person who even pretends to understand why he have gendered single occupancy bathrooms.
If there's space for two single-occupancy bathrooms, I think most people prefer it. Women don't like putting the seat down and think pee on the floor is pure carelessness. Men don't like putting the seat down and are grossed out by period blood. If it means the bathroom has a urinal, even if single-occupancy, I think most men would prefer that.
I don't believe you. I don't believe that if I walk into an Applebee's in Modesto, the "Men" and "Women" signs on the bathrooms are both replaced with "All Gender." Ditto for multi-stall bathrooms in, say, a courthouse.
Ie if you accept one, you have to accept the other.
Citation needed.
>There are two genders. Sometimes, people from one gender decide to identify with another gender. Fine. Men who believe they are women can go in the women's room and vice versa. No need to invent the concept of "all gender."
Binary gender [1],[2] and gendered bathrooms [3] are actually much more modern than the concept of a gender spectrum.
>["]I am not going to allow you to pretend this is real science."
Who is pretending this is real science? This is a rhetorical paper in a journal of philosophy.
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#History [2] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia) [3] : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/stu...
They aren't pursuing economic value or understanding of nature; they're examining the social world we're living in. If the author had missed her target, the paper would likely get no attention. Looking back at history, anybody who made claims that were ahead of their time would likely be proud to be able to say, “I caused an uproar when I said it”.