What is it with educated women comparing "transphobia'" to "white supremacy"?

submitted by BEB from twitter.com

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Finnegan7921 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They compare everything to white supremacy so that if someone argues with them, the person doing the arguing gets called a white supremacist and then has to go on the defensive. They get to argue on their terms. Racism is bad, so anything they don't like is racist and anyone who defends the thing in question is undoubtedly a Klansman. That's why Chas Strangio linked Rowling and Shrier to "white supremacy".

It is similar to "whataboutism", which is a shorter way of saying "i'm a massive hypocrite here but I want to win this argument, so I'll gaslight everyone reading into thinking that the shitty actions of the people/group i'm defending don't matter by using an internet term."

[–]diapason 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ugh I especially hated when they called Abigail Shrier a "white supremacist". She's Jewish, it's so offensive for them to lob that stuff at her just to slur her

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They've also called all the women in the UK who've brought legal cases challenging trans dogma white supremacists, even though most of them - such as Maya Forstater, Keira Bell, Raquel Rosario Sanchez and Allison Bailey - are not white.

[–]BEB[S] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And this woman is a neuroscientist immigrant of apparently South Asian descent and a former congressional candidate.

Bonus points is that she's responding to a tweet from Our Princess, Chuck Clym*r

So a female, probably from South Asia - where women are treated like utter crap if they're even allowed to be born, and are still fighting for toilets - is comparing the appropriation by men of women's biology and our safe spaces to the "violent argument of white supremacy."

I swear, both she and fellow South Asian-descent politician, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, have internalized the misogyny of their home country (countries?) and are now actively trying to destroy women's rights in the US under the guise of progress. For shame.

So sick of women throwing other women under the bus.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Educated does not mean intelligent, sadly. So many otherwise smart people have a huge blind spot when it comes to this issue. Plus, Critical Theory in all its permutations is pretty much the unquestioned Law of the Left now.

[–]BEB[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Her bio says "immigrant" but she has an American accent, so yeah, maybe she did immigrate young enough that she got indoctrinated into all the quasi-religious critical theory now being force fed at US universities.

[–]akkordeonplayer 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They’re brainwashed and/or scared to go against the narrative for fear of losing their jobs

[–]BEB[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She seems like a true believer.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal seems like a true believer too, but that's probably because she's ashamed her son is gay and would rather he be a woman, or something.

[–]eddyelric 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I've been seeing a serious uptick in what people, typically PMC liberals, call white supremacy. Fitness, punctuality, saving money, taking care of your children, etc. They're watering the language down for argument points.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think part of it is divide & conquer i.e., if we're all fighting about our skin color we won't unite.

But I also think something even more sinister is going on - The Powers That Be are now basically telling people of all colors that life skills that will make them successful are to be despised - what's that all about?

[–]eddyelric 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think it's a form of learned helplessness. If you are so full of despair, you won't fight back. You lose the drive to improve yourself and your situation. You blindly obey what is told to you by people who have it all together.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That could very well be the motive for trying to gaslight the general public into thinking the skills necessary for success are some sort of white supremacy. Ridiculous.

[–]eddyelric 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'd almost argue it's a form of racism, as if those habits are exclusive to white people and we shouldn't "appropriate" their culture of success. I imagine if one time-travelled to the 1860s-1950s and tried to explain this phenomenon to black Americans. I'm sure they'd laugh at you.

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think most black Americans now, at least older ones, would laugh at this too - or maybe be outraged, because it is racism to imply that blacks, or any ethnic group, are incapable of basic life skills.

[–]jet199 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

You are all still thinking when these people say white supremacy they are taking about racists who think white people should rule over everyone else.

When the woke say white supremacy they mean everything which has come out of the European enlightenment, good and bad.

So believing in biological sex or any science over a person's feelings is white supremacy in their world view, it makes sense by their rules.

I worry some people in GC purposely aren't getting this because they themselves use this theory and rhetoric when it suits them then only get upset when it's turned on them.

It's a bad and damaging through and through and you need to weed it out of your thoughts and arguments if you actually value science and fairness.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

When the woke say white supremacy they mean everything which has come out of the European enlightenment, good and bad.

So believing in biological sex or any science over a person's feelings is white supremacy in their world view, it makes sense by their rules.

But awareness of, and believing in, biological sex is not something that "has come out of the European enlightenment." Europeans knew about biological sex long before 1685. People outside Europe were well aware of, and knowledgable about, biological sex many thousands of years ago too.

I worry some people in GC purposely aren't getting this because they themselves use this theory and rhetoric when it suits them then only get upset when it's turned on them.

Can you tell us plainly what some of us "purposely aren't getting"? Coz to me at least, what you've said doesn't make it any clearer. Thanks.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the very notion of there being a subject called biology and that there are biological facts proved by scientific endeavour rather than experience or feelings did come out of the enlightenment.

Yes, people knew there were males and females but they didn't know why and use our current definition. They also knew they were stuck to the ground and didn't go flying off until space but they didn't have a concept of gravity.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, people knew there were males and females but they didn't know why and use our current definition

The art, texts and religious creeds of many ancient cultures says this is not the case. Long before Europeans entered the Enlightenment era on the cusp of the 18th century, people all over the world knew there were male and female animals, plants and humans and that a vast number of plant and animal species reproduced sexually.

To survive, humans over the course of history had to be extremely observant of plants and all the other members of the entire animal kingdom. Pattern recognition, categorizing, drawing comparisons, assessing whether lessons learned about one group were applicable to other groups, coming up with theories and testing them out weren't activities invented by Europeans in the Enlightenment. Gatherer-hunters knew all about the eggs many other animals made - from birds eggs to fish eggs to the eggs of crustaceans - and in carefully observing animal mating habits, they noticed that other male mammals ejaculate as human males do. Agriculture and animal husbandry couldn't have developed without an understanding of sexual reproduction and the different roles that male and female plants and animals played in it. Which is why in the Old Testament, Noah is instructed to load up the ark with animals in twos - one male, one female.

But the very notion of there being a subject called biology and that there are biological facts proved by scientific endeavour rather than experience or feelings did come out of the enlightenment.

Huh? The linchpin of the scientific method - empiricism - says knowledge comes from, and should only come from, the experience of the (human) senses.

The Enlightenment didn't really invent entirely new ways of gaining and testing knowledge, it codified, formalized and put a new spin on a lot of practices - close observation of evidence, noticing similarities and differences and creating categories based on them and so on - already long in use.

They also knew they were stuck to the ground and didn't go flying off until space but they didn't have a concept of gravity.

But they did know a fair bit about astronomy as well as lots of other areas that today we'd call chemistry, physics, botany, metallurgy, meteorology, anatomy and so on. Galileo, whose work laid the foundation for Newton's work on gravity, and da Vinci, who did a lot of dissecting and drawing of the human body, lived prior to the Enlightenment. Beer and wine making - which require a solid understanding of botany and chemistry - go back many thousands of years. Sailing and ocean navigation - which require knowledge of a whole lot of what today we'd call "scientific" information - goes back thousands of years too.

The idea that the the whole world was in the dark about sexual reproduction and the purposes of sex differentiation as well as its most salient feature (eggs and sperm) until the 18th century development known as the European Enlightenment came along and suddenly caused the human race to see clearly and shout "Eureka!" is not only a misrepresentation, it's Eurocentric. And though it might not be meant this way, it's inherently white supremacist too.

The claim that the Enlightenment opened the human race's eyes to sex and sexual reproduction for the first time also overlooks that long before 1685, even peasants in Europe knew a thing or two about sexual reproduction. Hence all the ancient European traditions of celebrating fertility and fecundity that Christianity appropriated and turned into the Easter eggs and Easter bunnies of modern times.

[–]fuckupaddams 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They think that colonizing white settlers brought the concept of biological sex to the clueless naive brown people.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Except if this woman is from South Asia, another group of colonizing settlers got to the part of the world where her family comes from long, long before whitey from Europe arrived. And those earlier colonizers to South Asia most definitely believed in the concept of biological sex and brought with them a whole lot of strictures pertaining to, and based on, sex. As the present-day inhabitants of Pakistan, Bangladesh and nearly 200 million Muslims in India can attest.

[–]Poppy29252 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The most evil state of being to these people is cis/het/white, they believe the white man colonized the world with ~the binary~, so naturally anyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist. Plus the woke white people who say this have to get their woke points somewhere when there isn't a BLM march for them to co-opt with trans posters.

It would shatter their egos if they came to terms with the fact non-white people actually DID and still DO know what male and female are without white people having to educate them, disregarding how the majority of trans are middle class straight white men. 🤭

[–]BEB[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The idea that non-white people have to be taught about biological sex by whites is so condescending and COLONIAL.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All of the cover given to transgender is actualy eurocentric. The europeans still think they are the master-race and that all other people are barbarians, so they cover themselves by supporting movements like transgender. It prevents them from dealing with their own white supremacy by masking it with liberalism. I.E. any criticism of europe/white liberals can be deflected by pro-trans or pro-lgbt, who are positioned as the most oppressed minority. It's a kind of double speak. Norway, where people are white, can make laws saying that transphobia is illegal and racist and that you can't use hate-speech against them, then they have a legal reason to bother non-white immigrants (the main group of people who might complain about transgender). All the while under the guise of protecting minorities or civil rights.