I have been trying to think about what activated my defence of @theorygurl's essay in the @nytimes. As in most social media convos, it was as much about me as it was about her, and it also has to do with principles that have crystallized for me since I became an editor. THREAD
Whether I think she is right or wrong, fair or unfair, @theorygurl is a breath of fresh air, particularly in a queer left academic world that does many things right, but has become stultifyingly conformist, defensive, & unable to acknowledge the privilege that it has accrued.
I do not entirely spurn gatekeeping, but I detest the forms of gatekeeping that shut down speech in the name of a set of community rules, rules that define what we can and cannot discuss openly, or in mixed company, that no one has agreed to.
One thing I liked about @activisthistory's piece in @PublicSeminar yesterday is that it discusses a mainstreamed speech protocol about our "pronouns", emerging from diverse *trans voices, that has become policy man places, but that many of us find troubling.
But to return to @theorygurl. First, the kerfuffle over this piece hid some not so lovely tensions. For example, many responses were thinly veiled versions of what we often see in situations where minoritized voices get a chance: "Why did they pick *her* and not me?"
The answer: @theorygurl has worked her a$$ off to be a writer, & maybe you haven't. Or haven't worked hard enough. Or you have, but haven't laid the groundwork in smaller publications that don't pay you.
But maybe you didn't like what @theorygurl wrote. This is a new and special experience for @nytimes reader? I understand why you might prefer @JennyBoylan's work -- she has a wonderful voice, builds bridges, and is a personal friend of mine. I love you Jenny.
But for those of you who see @JennyBoylan = good; @theorygurl = bad, I have news for you: lots of people have stories to tell, they aren't always without contradiction, they aren't always pretty, they shouldn't always have to follow the rules or risk a shaming.
And if you don't hang out on *trans social media, I have news: if there is something called a "trans community" there are people in it who are Trump supporters (not just @Caitlyn_Jenner, but a raft of people working in the military, national security and corporate America.)
I have one last point. Social media has amplified a strong tendency on the left and among liberals to treat dissenters among them as an existential threat to already vulnerable people. This happened to me around a political movement a few years back, and it is disgusting.
Vulnerable communities are vulnerable because there are, in fact, real existential threats. Critics of @theorygurl identified these threats correctly: insurance, identification, loss of legal rights, and loss of rights.
But by departing from the agreed upon narrative, @theorygurl did not create these threats, she did not validate and encourage them, and she did not provide "evidence" that people who undermine *trans lives are correct, in any way.
That is just a f*cked up thing to say, and ignores the real struggles against forces that require political, legal and activist solutions, solutions that are not arrived at by shutting down conversation.
Speech that does not, in itself, incite violence, demean or ridicule is not the equivalent of harm: making this claim damages the integrity of any community that sees itself as a freedom movement.
Finally, you do not have to agree with everything -- or anything -- @theorygurl says to defend her right to say it, or -- frankly -- to be informed and made more thoughtful by it. END THREAD
@threadreaderapp unroll
Sorry about screwing this one up: should read "loss of life." Talk about a Freudian slip.
