To think that the opposite of woke, is asleep?

[QuertyGirl]

Following on from a conversation with my elderly (but very with it) Aunt the other day.

She stated that she was anti-woke and I asked her if that just meant that she wasn't interested in equality, social justice any more. Being literally "asleep" to this sort of thing, as opposed to being awake or "woke". She definitely is not asleep to that stuff.

Another conversation with a (middle aged like me) friend and we agreed that when woke is used as an insult, it's no different to the old "political correctness gone mad" cry.

So, is anti-woke to be willingly asleep to stuff?

I know this calphurnia. Haven’t I agreed with you on much on this thread?

I don’t think that you can deny that some people who label themselves ‘woke’ have used their sanctimonious position to make women feel ashamed though?

I am happy to have that conversation if you do deny it, as to why you don’t believe some people who adopt that label have attempted to demonise (and I don’t use that term hyperbolically) women.

But no, I personally, don’t think woke always means someone supports trans rights where they conflict with those sex based rights for the half of the population who are female. I think people who label themselves as woke believe a whole range of things.

I also don’t believe a discussion can be had about ‘wokeness’ without discussing issues such as race, climate and gender identity.

”I don't understand how you can be pro or anti trans. They're people like any other.”

And I partly agree with you.

They are people.

Positioning people as ‘pro trans’ or ‘anti trans’ is meaningless though. People can be pro trans AND pro women supporting both trans people and the needs of women and girls. People can be fully pro women and girls and still want trans people to have all the protections and support they need. ‘Pro’ is an indication of priorities and focus.

Extremists use the term ‘anti’. It is not as clear cut as ‘pro’ being the opposite to ‘anti’ in instances like this.

I have said many times lately that posters who use ‘anti-trans’ are doing no one any favours. The term has started being used because transphobic no longer has shaming value. It leaves no one any room for discussion. In those instances, it is used to shame others.

‘Anti’ has strong connotations in this instance. And this disparity is not unique, it is like this in other instances too. These days the words are not proportional, if they ever were.

@Helleofabore who are these people who are labelling themselves as woke? Can you give any examples? I don't mean that provocatively either, it's just that I tend to disengage once I see or hear the word. Not because I have my head in the sand, but because I think it's a poor use of language.

I don’t think that you can deny that some people who label themselves ‘woke’ have used their sanctimonious position to make women feel ashamed though?

I am happy to have that conversation if you do deny it, as to why you don’t believe some people who adopt that label have attempted to demonise (and I don’t use that term hyperbolically) women.

You've taken my dislike of a word due to it's meaninglessness, and made a lot of assumptions here.

I will look up examples.

What assumptions have I made though? Those two paragraphs are posed questioning your views. I say clearly ‘I am happy to have that conversation if you do deny it’. Ie. Questioning your view.

I apologise if you felt I was attributing opinions to you.

I prefer the term "non radicalised".

I said woke doesn't mean pro-trans, which you might think by reading this thread. It's a very simple statement of fact with no hidden meaning, yet you felt the need to respond with a couple of paragraphs questioning whether I deny the demonisation of women by people labelling themselves as woke. Why is that? I suspect it's because the meaning of woke (to you) is so entrenched in trans issues that you don't recognise that for people outside of that echo chamber it means something different. Or it doesn't mean anything at all.

I have a habit of making long posts and trying to work out what posters mean.

“I suspect it's because the meaning of woke (to you) is so entrenched in trans issues that you don't recognise that for people outside of that echo chamber it means something different. Or it doesn't mean anything at all.”

You seem to be showing your own prejudice here.

I had some examples, but should I assume from that paragraph that you are not actually interested?

You seem to be showing your own prejudice here.

What prejudice is that?

I really have no agenda, other than hoping that the term 'woke' (and 'gammon,' for balance) fades into oblivion and people just say what they mean.

The prejudice that people who are involved in the campaign to strengthen the rights of women and girls and to prioritise those sex based rights over gender where sex matters are ‘entrenched’ and in ‘echo chambers’. Or is it just me that you are making that assumption about?

Could you explain why you would say that, considering I just posted that ‘woke’ covers multiple issues of which I was clear that gender was just one?

I have not accused you of having an agenda. I have agreed in part with some of your posts.

But now, I am beginning to wonder.

Because this:

“I suspect it's because the meaning of woke (to you) is so entrenched in trans issues that you don't recognise that for people outside of that echo chamber it means something different. Or it doesn't mean anything at all.”

is presented as assumption. I don’t see it as a question.

@Helleofabore you're reading entrenched and echo chambers as negatives. Would you prefer if I said that women and sex-based rights are clearly subjects close to your heart, which might be influencing how you are interpreting this thread and some of the responses, including mine?

And nope, still no agenda beyond language. Honestly.

They are negatives. They indicate extreme beliefs and usually beliefs formed from ignorance and lack of engagement with a wide range of thinking.

What do they mean to you?

Would you also now like to show me the posts on this thread of mine that show ‘entrenchment’ and ‘echo chamber’ thinking?

Yes. I have posted examples of feminism to highlight points. I have not centred my discussion on feminism here. I have been pointing out for pages how language had been changed and how it is being used.

Maybe once you have read my posts again, you could tell me how you think I am interpreting this thread? And where it differs from your interpretation.

Genuinely, I would be interested to know.

So, is anti-woke to be willingly asleep to stuff?

Obviously not because, as you say of your anti-woke Aunt, 'She definitely is not asleep to that stuff.'

What did she say when you asked her to clarify?

@Helleofabore with respect, I'm going to tap out of this conversation.

I don't have anything further to add, and I have more important (and more enjoyable) things to do with my time than revisit your previous posts. As I'm sure you do too.

I understand @Calphurnia88