Transactivism is sexist and delusional

[CampervanKween]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/27/trans-activism-sexist-delusional/?t=qB8GMvp3NoeiHkfvRKfg9Q&s=09

Very good comprehensive article in the Telegraph today. To read it click on the link then go into airplane mode on your phones.

Absolutely, he is not giving citations because this is a polemic not an academic article.

Subjective feeling is not a negotiated identity of the sophisticated and socially-integrated form. It is instead, something akin to raw emotion – something shallow, impulsive, and mutable; something that does not iterate well, in its hedonic excesses, across social situations or time. Thus, those who argue that that emotion (in its most short-term manifestation) must be, ethically and by law, the determining measure of “identity,” of clinical and medical practice, and of legal personhood, are insisting with force on the adoption of an idea as imprudent and immature as can possibly be conceptualised.

I mean that technically. A two-year old, as of yet incapable of mature social play, is governed by nothing but the whim of immediate emotion and motivation. Two-year olds cannot play well with others. They define their own reality. Like Moses’ God, they claim, omnisciently, “I am what I am” and insist anti-socially that all others abide by their subjective fiat.

Unsophisticated, hedonistic radicals have therefore imposed a theory of identity, backed with the force of law, that makes mandatory the immature toddler’s way of conceiving of and acting in the world.

I particularly liked this bit. Its comforting every time someone confirms you are not going mad; the grown ups really have left the room and the children in it are free to entertain themselves however they like.

Watching a self-described feminist forum licking Jordan Peterson’s boots would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic.

His worldview is based on the idea that traditional gender roles are the optimal basis for a successful society. He literally told Tucker Carlson in an infamous interview that “The idea that women were oppressed throughout history is an appalling theory.”

landOFconfusion

Take a day off, you must be worn out policing women all the time, we're such an unruly lot.

@JoodyBlue because so many people want to dismiss arguments on the basis of some character failing in the person making them. It only took 3 replies for that one to surface here.

So you get people making it clear that, despite them thinking that Peterson is an egotistical wanker or whatever, they did still read his arguments and found that several of them to be pretty good points.

I think it’s more of a ‘let’s engage with the substance thing’ than anything else.

This is an example of exactly why so many posts start with disclaimers about not always agreeing with Peterson or liking his delivery/attitude.

For some of our regular contributors , the idea that you could listen to someone and agree on something but without endorsing everything they’ve ever said seems to be anathema.

That is such a stupid post.
It makes you sound like you have no education at all since you are completely foreign to the idea of actually reading what people have to say and engaging with it.
Seriously just go away and learn to think.

Personally, I have a problem with the way in which Peterson so often reduces everything to sex differences. And that comes through in this article too.

That doesn’t mean that I must reject everything he says or that my views might align with his in some ways or up to a point. But, it seems out confused friend is determined that it must always be entirely either/or.

This is another example of sexism. Posters are discussing the merits of a long form article by a successful writer and because the posters are female and the writer is male, this sexist comment envisages women supine on the floor submitted to the man.

The critical poster can't visualise women as equal to the writer and worthy of discussing his work, but are seen only as behaving like animals or pets and communicating with the author with mute licking.

Sexism indeed.

Hahaha! "degenerate". Pot calling the kettle back for TRAs.

Stop with purity spiral it’s immature and it’s part of the reason we are in this mess. People should be allowed to express views and we are allowed to debate them. If there had been a proper debate about the intersection of women’s rights and trans rights from the outset we might have been much closer to a sensible position.

He makes some good points (the same points GC women have been making for years) amongst the clunky verbosity, but omits other important points that need to be made.

For example, many adult transwomen these days are not "gender dysphoric" - they are intact heterosexual males who want to remain that way, because the nature of their "trans identity" is largely fetishistic. Nonetheless these men are often highly influential TRAs who encourage the medication and mutilation of youngsters as a way of "validating" the trans category and their place in it.

Unfortunately the fact that this piece was written by Peterson will work against it for many potential readers, who avoid him because he's been typecast (partly by himself) as hopelessly right-wing.

Unfortunately the fact that this piece was written by Peterson will work against it for many potential readers, who avoid him because he's been typecast (partly by himself) as hopelessly right-wing

Remember it's in the Telegraph! I subscribe to it because of Suzanne Moore and its other GC coverage but, trust me, no one is going to have a problem with Peterson being too right-wing.

Thought this bit was good as well.

Yes, I agree.

But then I agree with the whole article. Although I would like to bring attention to this line:

"Those who are suicidal do not deserve or have a right to their own death merely because they are depressed and feeling useless to the point of despair."

They do now, in Canada, thanks to MAID.

This is what being a “woman” has come to. What constitutes “female” has now been reduced to “any human with a hole, however produced, that a man can use as a substitute or replacement for masturbation or dyadic intercourse.” That definition is the ultimate in sexism. That is far and away a more reductionist and derogatory conceptualisation of woman than anything previously foisted on women by even the most oppressive of patriarchal and misogynistic tyrants.

Love this paragraph.

And I see one again someone is attempting to derail AGAIN with yet more drivel on why FWR women are the wrong sort of women for daring to read something by someone not on the prescribed list of people who are pure of thought and deed.

...I mean a wider audience outside of the right wing bubbles.

As the list of big-name trans-critical right-wingers grows, it gives the Left more damning names to throw at lefties who are brave enough to raise objections to the TRA movement.

"Ah, so you now agree with Jordan Peterson/ Murdoch/ Trump/ Putin etc etc".

Because otherwise you get posters trying to side-track with ad hominem attacks on the author. As - predictably - has already happened on this thread.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow and @SquidwardBound I understand what you are saying then and thanks for clarifying. But I think this is part of the problem. Not one of us is squeaky clean, we are human beings. Therefore the reason many people do not speak out at all is because of fear of this type of thing - I don't like her, but she has a point - much easier to stay schtum. I really don't like it. Unless I heard good reason for smearing O'Neil and Petersen. I have looked for reasons why people dislike them and I don't find them but maybe am looking in the wrong place. I'm not asking for them to be aired here.

I'm liking the way some people are saying - play the ball, not the person.

If we can only read work by people who have never been arseholes, I've got terrible news about Tolstoy, Rousseau, and Dickens, to name but three.

I think you are slightly missing the point tbh. The very purpose of the disclaimers you are uncomfortable with is to say "play the ball, not the person".

I'm guessing you are new to these Boards, in which case, welcome - it is always great to have new readers 😀 Stick around, and you will notice how many attempts there are from certain posters to shut down conversations, or invalidate women's concerns. However we make a point, we are always doing it wrong in some way. So many regular posters will try to circumvent these tedious attempts at derailing.

no - been here since 2006 :) Since 2019 as Joody though

The "culture war" battle lines tend to be fairly rigid. Most of my friends are left-wing and would immediately respond to the idea of reading a JP piece with a loud guffaw.

Another example: I note yesterday Glinner tweeted a link to a Sky News report about GC politician Moira Deeming being suspended from the Vic Liberal Party. Unbeknown to Glinner, the presenter, Peta Credlin, is a much-loathed right-wing celeb in Oz and hardly anyone I know would entertain the idea of watching her for one moment - or anything at all on Sky News.

I've been trying to cultivate a more gender-sceptical attitude amongst them but it's very much an uphill battle, and I've lost at least one good friend entirely with my "transphobic shit".

So this is the same thing that is happening to KJK though. A categorising so that her arguments can be disgarded. I know party political affiliation is a massive thing in the US. In the UK I think it has often been less so, with floating voters being a term used in every election. To me that feels much more grown up, although I suspect many will think me politicaly naive, I think listening to arguments from anyone and everyone is to be applauded. One doesn't have to agree with everything a person says to agree with something they say. Equally one doens't have to dislike someone because they don't agree with something they say. I'm just pointing that up really. We might change things by modelling how they should be in part, rather than replicating the bad stuff.

I'd be sending them written transcripts of the interviews without revealing who the interviewers were. Until after they'd agreed with the content then I'd happily divulge the source.

Got ya - specifics! That I understand. 😀