Post Modernism keeps coming up at the root of many debates on contentious issues. Gender identity politics one of the area where the influence of post-modernism can be seen. This quote from Tildeb on Violetwisp’s blog is part of his critique of a segment of the left side of the political spectrum what Tildeb calls the Regressive left. The claim is as follows:
“My claim is that there is a strong and growing element in the Left that is regressive, that operates by actions and sentiments that a anti-liberal in principle and demonstrate actions that are anti-Enlightenment in value… not least of which is saying that they do so on behalf of liberal principles and Enlightenment values but then actually committing the opposite. Furthermore, I claim the tactics used are fascist, that bullying and intimidation and violence and disruption and demonization are gaining wider and broader social acceptance… especially by people who should know better. In addition, from these sideline observers who should know better than appease and apologize for these hypocritical illiberals comes a kind of Fifth Column, people who go along, who do not soundly condemn, who rationalize excuses on behalf of others, who partake in the illusion of supporting ‘correctness’ by incorrect means and use a form of apologetics for Really Bad Ideas championed by the more militant advocates who presume they are defending victimized groups by these fascist methods.”
Many women are experiencing this phenomena vis-a-vis liberal feminism allied with trans-activism. Females are routinely branded by the regressive left as TERFs for expressing a need for female only spaces, expressing their sexual preferences and defending the necessary boundaries they set in society in order for them to be safe. The function of the term “terf” (trans exclusionary radical feminist) is to silence, shame, and coerce women into accepting men into their spaces and their feminism. It has been a fairly successful campaign, but women are slowly seeing the downsides of a version of feminism that centres around the needs of males, having their peak trans moments and rejecting liberal feminism because essentially, it isn’t about women and their struggle for emancipation from the patriarchal structures of society.
Tildeb isn’t directly addressing feminist concerns, but this next portion of his comment illustrates exactly the issue with the regressive left’s take on reality and how it affects their argumentation.
“The point I keep raising is about the use of anti-liberal methods done in the name of liberal principles and then excused by those claiming to support liberal principles. Also, I keep raising the point but face significant reticence. from those I accuse of hypocrisy, of using a double standard, of going along with a very Post Modern framework and language not just about groups and power but this idea that everyone owns their own facts, their own truths, that any action illiberal intolerant action undertaken in defense of the victimized groups is somehow justified as well as exempt from legitimate criticism.”
Everyone can’t have their own set of facts and truths and have the naive expectation that others will go along with them. Your deeply subjective personal thoughts and feelings are precisely that – *your* thoughts and feelings; expecting others to fall in line with your subjective whims is not only unreasonable, it is not how the world works. Interfacing with society involves a give and take and mutual understanding of how the world works. We teach children that their own desires and perspectives must be tempered with input from reality – they cannot have all the things, nor do things work precisely the way children think they should. As children mature their outlook on the world becomes more nuanced and the interaction between their personal selves and the world begins to even out and the interplay between individual and society establishes itself into a generally beneficial mutual relationship.
The right to swing ones arms around is limited by the presence of others who may not want to be hit with said arms. In other words feel free to exercise your freedom as long as you’re not infringing on the rights of others. The same can be said of your subjective thoughts and feelings on gender and how your present yourself to the world. By all means, identify however you wish. That is your right, and I fully endorse an individuals right to do so.
But, your self-identification ends with you. There should be no expectation that others have to take your subjective self-declared identity at face value. So, if you happen to be male and identify as a woman fine. But the expectation that others *must* treat you as a woman goes against the conception of rights we have in a liberal society. Others may have different views on gender and identity and they have the exact same rights as the person who happens to be a male identifying as woman.
The problem is that people who do not go along with the self-identification of others are unjustly maligned, harassed, and their views marginalized by the current liberal feminists/transactivist movement. People who believe that the social construction of gender is harmful and should be abolished have their views routinely mislabelled -phobic or bigoted when really they are just stating their opinion (of course, being backed by fact and observable reality is nice too).
So, let’s try and further the bounds of the debate and see where it takes us.
A big thank you Tildeb for clearly putting into words some of key points of the post modern gender identity debate and the surrounding controversy.
15 comments
August 4, 2017 at 3:33 pm
tildeb
Thanks, Arb. I wish I could write better, more clearly and concisely, and improve my very poor editing skills because I think this issue is a growing cancer deeply affecting younger people.
The very long thread actually started on Clare’s blog when I insisted she was male because she was born with a Y chromosome, developed with a Y chromosome, and cannot wish her biology away even if she identifies as a woman. I have no problem respecting her gender expression but I do have a problem going along with what amounts to a lie that she is as female as any other woman born without a Y chromosome. Because she banned me from further comment, this issue spilled over to VW’s blog when I responded to her previous comment on Clare’s. But I thought it interesting to note the connection between Dawkins’ dis-invitiation (because of potential offensiveness) and Clare’s banning of my offending insistence to respect the truth. And, sure enough, out came all the usual accusations of bigotry and discrimination for doing so. I also thought it interesting how careful so many commentators were trying to avoid the same treatment while very gently disagreeing with the dis-invitation. It reminded me very much of the “I’m an atheist, but…” crowd…as in, I respect liberal principles, but…
LikeLiked by 2 people
August 4, 2017 at 3:41 pm
The Arbourist
@ Tildeb
Your patience and efforts over there are inspiring. So much goalpost moving and uncharitable behaviour, but you persevered.
I did not want to take your quote out of context, but responding over there in the deep threads would hazard this commentary being lost.
I hope my additional commentary isn’t decontextualizing your words. It is just what you are arguing for has many analogues in the radical feminists debate against transactivism/queer theory and thus, too good not to highlight. :)
LikeLiked by 2 people
August 4, 2017 at 6:55 pm
john zande
It’s been a fascinating thread
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm
john zande
@ Arb
If you want to see patience, read Tildeb’s threads on Mel’s blog.
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 7:07 pm
tildeb
JZ, is that patience a good thing or bad do you think? Was it just me, or was anyone else surprised at the vehemence?
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 8:10 pm
john zande
At the end, you mean? That was beautiful, like a damn filled with a million stratospheric helium weather balloons exploding :) Made me laugh, but he well, well deserved it. And you were spot on in what you said. I admire your capacity to detail the argument, lay it out, explain how and why things are arrived at. He hand waved it away, time after time, exposing the lie that he thinks he’s thinking rationally about his belief system.
For me on that thread, I was just astounded that for a post ON design, he didn’t want to talk about THE design. I enjoy practicing aggravetics :)
LikeLike
August 4, 2017 at 8:23 pm
tildeb
Mel was just going through the motions but never allowing the other to have made a valid point; instead he always had to have the last word. He would just make yet another non sequitur or refer back to telling us to go argue with the video (not him… no, never him! He was just the messenger, donchaknow) and pretend his points could still stand. Drove me nuts because it’s neither rational nor logical and certainly not without at the very best controversy yet you could tell he was trying to build a case with each post even though the previous point – an essential point to have to accept – was either incorrect – like his quantum argument for the supernatural ‘realm’ to exist ‘outside’ of reality (whatever the hell that means) – or at best long debunked apologetics making the rounds yet again. It was and remains transparently deceitful.
LikeLiked by 2 people
August 5, 2017 at 8:22 am
omegaphallic
I find this funny as hell because now your making the sorts of arguements that antifeminists and MRAs have been making, even using terms like the regressive left.
But in some ways you are right in that the regressive left rejects independant facts for feelings.
Politics makes strange bed fellows.
LikeLike
August 5, 2017 at 10:18 am
The Arbourist
@Omega
Bullshit is bullshit whether it comes from the left or right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 6, 2017 at 1:15 pm
violetwisp
“The function of the term “terf” (trans exclusionary radical feminist) is to silence, shame, and coerce women into accepting men into their spaces and their feminism.”
What label is more appropriate, if TERF is objectionable? Are you not radical feminists who want to exclude trans people from from female spaces, and indeed who question their right to exist as they choose? I can think of a lot more direct ways of expressing it. Trans Rejecting Radical Feminists seems more appropriate – would that offend you?
“Your deeply subjective personal thoughts and feelings are precisely that – *your* thoughts and feelings; expecting others to fall in line with your subjective whims is not only unreasonable, it is not how the world works.”
Sounds exactly like a religious argument against same sex marriage. Well done.
“So, if you happen to be male and identify as a woman fine. But the expectation that others *must* treat you as a woman goes against the conception of rights we have in a liberal society. Others may have different views on gender and identity and they have the exact same rights as the person who happens to be a male identifying as woman.”
You’re right. There are some Christians who can’t bear to be in proximity of a same sex couple. They have different views on sex and sexuality and have the right to leave the room. We call them ‘bigots’ and wonder why, even if they can’t get their head round it, they can’t at least be polite to people attempting to live their life, and treat them as they would want to be treated. If they refuse to bake them a cake or fire them from a job on this basis, they can face legal action though. They are furious that it’s not their right to treat people as they want to – with doctrinal contempt. Like you with trans people.
“The problem is that people who do not go along with the self-identification of others are unjustly maligned, harassed, and their views marginalized by the current liberal feminists/transactivist movement.”
Harassment is wrong. We have to accept that there are always certain conservative groups within every movement who can’t get their head round the next stage of progressive thinking – happens in every generation.
“People who believe that the social construction of gender is harmful and should be abolished have their views routinely mislabelled -phobic or bigoted when really they are just stating their opinion”
I believe that the current social construction of gender is harmful. I don’t believe we can wave a magic wand to abolish them. We should strive for equality of opportunity in all things regardless of sex and gender, and we should attempt to break down barriers and social pressures to conform to any particular roles. But as we push to change society,
everyone should be free to express themselves as they feel comfortable, regardless of sex and gender. If you tell someone they can or can’t behave in certain ways because of your written rules or theory, you are not fighting for freedom, you are fighting for yet more draconian interference in the lives of individuals.
LikeLike
August 6, 2017 at 1:18 pm
violetwisp
@tildeb
“I also thought it interesting how careful so many commentators were trying to avoid the same treatment while very gently disagreeing with the dis-invitation.”
Can you give me a few examples of this?
LikeLike
August 7, 2017 at 12:25 pm
The Arbourist
@VW
Radical feminist would probably work. The term certainly isn’t a moniker of respect.
Unfortunately one doesn’t even need to be a radical feminist to be labelled a ‘terf’. Talking about female biology, being a lesbian, using the names of female body parts, even expressing a sexual preference can all get one labelled a terf. Like the terms witch, harpy, or harridan et cetera it is terminology used to name and shame women who have the courage to speak up and name their oppressors.
Do females not deserve spaces free from their oppressors? Feminists fought for the right to associate with whomever they please. Transwomen are men, so do not belong in female only spaces.
This seems to be a bit of rhetorical leap. I do not question trans-peoples right exist as they choose. They however live in the same shared reality that I exist in and in that reality the very real conception of biological sex exists. Men have been oppressing women on the basis of biological sex for centuries, and that oppression doesn’t stop because a man decides or feels that he is woman. One’s personal subjective experience doesn’t change how society is structured, or how gender and patriarchy continue to oppress women and men in society.
So exist away, but no group gets redefine material reality.
It doesn’t offend me either way. I’m a white male on top of the gender hierarchy and the radical trans-agenda doesn’t affect me because it reinforces patriarchy and thus benefits me. The trans-agenda also doesn’t address the root problem – patriarchal male violence – against women and transwomen alike. From listening to, and occasionally participating in discussions with radical feminists though, the term terf is most definitely a slur, roughly on the same level as ‘tranny’ as applied to trans-individuals, so really its up to you on what level of discourse you wish to pursue.
I’m not up on the religious argument against SSM marriage is it based on any sort of fact? Given that religious objects are based mostly base on their important magic books and associated fairy tales, I’m guessing no.
The radical feminist objections to thoughts and feelings being used to describe reality look something like this.
The first bunch of concerns look like this:
1. Removing the legal right of women to organize politically against sex-based oppression by males
2. Removing the legal right of women to assemble outside the presence of men
3. Removing the legal right of women to educational programs created for women outside the presence of men
4. Eliminating data collection of sex-based inequalities in areas where females are underrepresented
5. Elimination of sex-based crime statistics
6. Eliminating athletic programs and sports competition for women and girls
These concerns are embedded in the fact that males oppress females in our society. The axis of oppression in question, is sex. Feminism is about emancipating women from the oppression they face in society. So, if reality of being female in society is important to you, then yeah the feelings and subjective experiences of men come a distant second when it comes to importance.
Comparing the rights of females and their safety to unfounded religious concerns about SSM seems to be an apple and oranges comparison. SSM will not harm the institution of marriage or the hetros – adding males into female spaces will (and currently is) harm(ing) women.
Respecting the reality we live in is most certainly not doctrinal contempt. Again, trans people can identify how they wish, their personal interpretations of reality do not however trump material existence and all of the societal aspects hang on the world that is based on fact and empirical evidence.
Does being in a minority make your claims immune to criticism and evaluation? Because it certainly isn’t the case while espousing radical feminist doctrine, let me assure you. :)
Trans-ideology is the polar opposite of ‘progressive thinking’. It reinforces the patriarchal constructs of gender and gender roles thus continuing the status-quo and toxic situation we currently inhabit.
I’m glad we can agree on something.
Personal freedom in a liberal society ends when it starts to infringe on the rights of others. Women’s rights are being invalidated, their boundaries violated, and their speech censored – the source, unsurprisingly, is men. So, until there is a realignment of values – one that recognizes the key axis of oppression for women – biological expression – growth in terms of freedom and rights for everyone will be severely limited.
Individuals can behave in whatever ways they see fit. My reaction to said behaviour falls firmly into the personal liberty and freedom you claim to uphold. This freedom includes critique ideas and theory, in this case trans-activism, which is harmful to women (because of the conservation and replication of harmful gender stereotypes) and does not concur with observable reality (biological reality). The case you put forward is one that explicitly places the feelings of males ahead of the safety and boundaries of females in society. It may be egalitarian in the skewed way that many egalitarian POV are, but in any case it is certainly not Feminist as the majority of trans-activism and queer theory is not advancing the liberation of females from patriarchy.
LikeLike
August 9, 2017 at 12:05 pm
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
A speech given by Kenan Malik that dovetails nicely with many of your positions.
A good quote:
LikeLike
August 9, 2017 at 12:41 pm
tildeb
Quite true. The approach – the ideology, now a full blown condition of an infected mind – is called the bigotry of lower expectations, granting a lower expectation to some supposedly victimized group to allow a fascist ‘social’ (imposed social constructionist) response irrespective of and even contrary to facts.
To insist that the Y chromosome is merely a social construct that has no relevance or effect in human development is beyond absurd, yet this is exactly what people like VW insist MUST be the case. It is a replacement of facts by an ideology that will not tolerate disagreement. It is an ideology that will be imposed on everyone and enforced as soon as the means to do so can be legally empowered.
This is the danger that legal autonomy – a shared respect for and dignity of the individual – must now face and the assault is clearly coming from the Left, coming from those who presume such trivialities as legal autonomy and/or free speech or even facts are not an acceptable counter-argument.
Hence, we see the firing of Google engineer (also an MIT researcher and Harvard educated biological system specialist) James Damore for “promoting gender stereotypes” for writing an internal memo that uses facts and relevant psychological studies to question the social construction mandate used within Google of what constitutes ‘correct’ team diversity.
Nothing demonstrates ‘correct’ tolerance like intolerance. And there’s the Post Modern thinking in all its glory.
LikeLike
August 12, 2017 at 6:25 am
tildeb
Here’s a short part of Jerry Coyne’s daily post today:
“(I)n 1990 the fossil skeleton of Sue, the most complete Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton ever found (90% of it recovered), was discovered by paleontologist Sue Hendrickson in South Dakota. Here’s the specimen, which now resides in Chicago’s Field Museum, where I saw it not long ago (the original skull, too heavy to mount, is upstairs in a case). Although it’s named Sue, we’re not sure of the sex, and the idea of “male” and “female” dinosaurs is a social construct, anyway, since science has told us that sex is a continuum:”
Too funny.
LikeLiked by 1 person