86

14 comments

because it's all about men and what men want. We are so accustomed to men just getitng/taking what they want that it seems natural for people if men want to take womanhood too. Because lets face it this whole discussion is about 'trans women' nobody gives a shit about FtMs

FtMs are just another justification for them to use, they are tools.

[–] Asha95 36 points Edited

1: I think it’s a matter of sunk costs. Institutions embraced TWAW literally and now they can’t back down without looking like fools

2: TWAW is one pillar of the entire intersectional worldview, the culmination of “lived experience” logic over logic-logic. If it gets toppled the whole ideology is in jeopardy, along with a lot of careers. Trans women are thought to be positioned at the bottom of the Woke hierarchy, giving them serious power, so invalidating them is destabilizing to the whole thing.

3: Some level of genuine empathy. Most people don’t want to hurt others, and we are repeatedly assured that trans people will be harmed if we speak frankly. So we don’t.

4.Money. Pharma companies and Silicone Valley are powerful as hell.

[–] womenopausal [OP] witchbabe🧙‍♀️👶 17 points

Makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't call it the intersectional worldview though, so much as the (mis?) use of standpoint epistemeology for the 'lived experience' element.

All this, and prohibiting debate as the strategy for assertions that have no real logic or merit ("TWAW" etc.). The absolutist end of TRA has consistently been about stealth policy change, co-option of existing equality and equity initiatives, and forced acceptance, very unlike older civil rights movements.

It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Those other issues? People go into them having a sense that there is a logical way through, if you can only find the right facts. Trans ideology doesn't have logic at its root. It's just wishful thinking/a lie originally rooted in homophobia. Mustn't look too close.

Well, if a man writes this, maybe people will listen...and not just immediately threaten to rape him and all his kin.

Gracie girl, are you reading? We await your "hot take" rebuttal with bated breath!

  1. Defending the wrong view about trans identity causes harm. Response: First, it's not clear it does. People today are quick to throw terms like "harm," "violence," and "erasing" around in loaded and inaccurate ways. It doesn't fool anyone.

Now, if it turns out that when Stock publishes her papers, this literally causes (through some bizarre laws of physics) thousands of people to die, then I agree she should stop, but you need to show your work here, folks.

omg lol

[–] yesisaiditxx 13 points Edited

The end:

Again, I remind you I have not taken Stock's side on trans identity. I am instead asking why taking her position should open her to abuse, ostracism, and the like.

hypothetical imagination that I could speak to the writer

Oh, Jason. [Is this the same man that comes up when you google the name, who’s a business professor? If so, Professor Brennan] I understand why you wanted to try and save yourself, and I appreciate you even writing this. (Perhaps what you said is true and you have no opinion— a cognitive distance women challengers of this phenomenon can’t afford). Please continue to ask questions and challenge this because women don’t have the luxury of being able to write such a thing but not be condemned, black-listed, threatened, or doxxed as a hateful ‘TERF’ even if we’d put a nice little disclaimer.

So, please don’t let whatever criticism you get from this discourage continued inquiry into this cultural sickness. We need writings that more people will perchance consider— men’s. Thanks again.

Because it’s all about men. They are the beneficiaries of this gender ideology. It keeps them in charge and women subordinate.

While I agree with the initial question, a lot of the paraphrasing of things philosophers defend become pretty unfair at times and the overall tone is not really focused on why this issue is not open for debate but more on why philosophers have political agendas. That can be a problem, but to me this is a particularly weird example because it's such a flip of theory. To me, the complete refusal to allow this discussion is especially troubling when embodiment was central to feminism just a few decades ago. At least address why that is rejected, not just ignore it altogether!