******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
One of the problems with this “debate” is that it seems to have become needlessly polarised. It seems that both sides have become entrenched, and one of the main causes of this is the insistence by certain wings of the “Rad Fem” movement and their allies to label anyone who supports Trans rights or Trans activism as somehow motivated by misogyny. I have to say, the OP email here is a case in point. You can disagree on this issue without being a sexist. That being said, I am also disturbed by some of the tactics employed by some wings of Trans activism recently. While they of course have a right to protest outside whatever meetings they want, attempts to shut down feminist meetings (however insulted Trans people may be by what some feminists have to say about them) using tactics such as blocking entrances and heckling, are not acceptable; and will needlessly backfire. While I would agree that the worst examples of violent and sexualised rhetoric are isolated cases, there is a wider problem of such rhetoric not being challenged, or ignored. Generally, the whole tone of the debate is toxic. In my opinion, one of the problems has been that both sides of this argument have become dominated by sectarian groupings, who seem entirely unconcerned about alienating broad layers of people. The Rad Fems are pretty much separatists by definition. Many trans activists (in Britain at least, I don’t know about elsewhere), seem to have adopted anarchist tactics (which is to see any alternative opinion as “oppressive”, and therefore anything goes in opposing them). The problem with this is that most people will not be particularly read-up on the ins and outs of this issue. Many will have any number of confused ideas on this subject. Whatever position people land on this, to dismiss those who don’t fit your own firm views as misogynists, on the one hand, or transphobes, on the other, would be a mistake. Most people will come to this debate fresh, and open to being convinced either way. And many, in coming across this debate for the first time, will run a mile when they see the level of toxicity. Tim N On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dennis Brasky via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > > AGREED! > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 9:22 AM MM via Marxism < > marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Philip Ferguson via Marxism < > > marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > > > > What I find truly callous and cowardly is the preparedness of a swathe > of > > > male leftists to ignore this campaign and, in a number of cases, to > > > actually help enable it. > > > > > > The campaign itself is largely being conducted, of course, by > biological > > > males albeit ones who self-ID as women and even lesbians (albeit > > > lesbians-with-penises-and-testicles). > > > > > > Some of the men here really need to seriously look at themselves and > > their > > > silence on this vicious - and misogynistic - campaign. Take a look, > for > > > instance, at some of the material highlighted on the peaktrans site: > > > https://www.peaktrans.org/ <https://www.peaktrans.org/> > > > > This is a deflection. No one here (as far as I’m aware) has even hinted > at > > support for de-platforming, social media attacks, harassment, or anything > > similar, and at least some of us have been actively involved in struggles > > for women’s rights for many years. But all of the evidence offered by > > Whitmore et al — as unfortunate and even objectionable as some the > reported > > behaviour may be — is still essentially anecdotal, and there’s been no > > acknowledgment at all of the overwhelming *statistical* counter-evidence. > > So this is just a continuation of the argument-from-moral-panic, with a > > dollop of ad hominem and identitarian moral policing thrown in for > > rhetorical good measure. > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/nelsontim86%40gmail.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
