Because I'm into these little details, I'll note that Colin introduces Brooklyn as "an activist." I would take a bold guess and say Brooklyn didn't introduce themself as such.
Colin's been on a simple-minded campaign to use "activist" as a take-down for folks he disagrees with.
For anyone who is not sure what I mean, Wright (along with others like Shrier, Rowling, Hilton) is keen to use the term "activist" as a label to discredit the political work that others are doing, while refusing to apply the same label to his own political work.
This particularly applies to those active on trans rights, whom Wright consistently calls "activists" but not also scholars, researchers, intellectuals, writers, biologists, psychologists as the case may be. Professional labels he reserves for anti-trans activists or centrists.
I've pointed this out for a long time. Colin's approach is quite transparent and rather consistent over the years.
I see you've been doing this thread and its various conversations for most of the day, but now that it's my spare time let me chime in and ask you a series of probing questions. What?! You don't want to talk to me?
And to foggily think I used to follow you!
1/
Now that I think some more about it, yes, maybe it was the case not only that followed you, *but also* that I stopped. It should be noted that I stopped.
You are clearly famous, if I think I followed you, and then I think I stopped. Famous enough to write an autobiography.
2/
Flattered? Just wait! You should call your autobiography, *The Arrogance of Academia.* Zing!
Now, after I've established I possibly followed you once but then probably stopped, I will hit hard one last time. Time to mute you! Kaboom!
For the edification of readers who follow Colin Wright's on Twitter: the definition of racism as involving both prejudice and power is old. If Colin had studied in a field where scholarship on racism is part of the curriculum, he'd probably know.
Attached, Paul Gilroy, 1990.
Sigh.
@SwipeWright has responded, at some length, to @roderickgraham's tweet. It's useful that he did. He holds on tight to his own calculation of what racism is, how he wants it defined, and what possibilities of admonishing others flow from it for him.
Is this an art form? Would it work better if we saw Colin Wright's public writing as a form of art? It is full of fictions, that is certain. Needs work on style.
Sex-based rights aren't a thing (see linked thread).
And about biological sex: that we aren't all riding the biological sex horse so incessantly and unnecessarily as you, Colin, doesn't mean we're jettisoning the concept entirely. Biologists are welcome to have it and take it out for a trot.
"*We're* the ones 'using trans people as a wedge issue in a culture war,' not those bending so far over backwards to not offend anyone that they'll willingly jettison the concept of biological sex and, as a consequence, all sex-based rights."
“I do not think that it is mere thin-skinned sensitivity on my part to believe that I would have fared no worse had I discussed my affairs with an avowed enemy.”—#JordanPeterson’s reaction to the piece.
Perhaps, though, it is more than mere thin-skinned sensitivity?
#JordanPeterson on his website details his daughter’s exceptional medical history in a long paragraph as argument against the reporter crediting the source she used for information about Mikhaila’s medical history: “according to her website.”