People keep arguing that Singal isn't transphobic. Not only is Singal transphobic but he thinks most progressives agree with him on transphobia. A story in image form. At least two tweets' worth.
Original tweet by a mutual but I don't want creeps to find it.
Conclusion of that story about Jesse insisting that the Womanhood Redefined article in American Conservative is something most progressives agree with. Also, Free Republic's response to that article. Singal agrees with terf rhetoric and said so
Isn't it weird that someone who is so sympathetic toward trans people and not transphobic at all would agree with an article that explicitly sets out to frame trans women as evil unreasonable monsters who demand too much when they want human decency and respect?
Isn't it strange he agrees with someone deploying the same arguments about trans women as far right hate groups, English journalists, and failed comedy writers if he's not transphobic?
Transphobes and transmisogynists constantly insist that they're not transphobic or transmisogynist, that they have "reasonable concerns," and that trans people are just overly sensitive and trying to cancel them. This isn't new, it's the constant way of things.
As you can see, Jesse's stans definitely want the evidence and aren't just asking so they can say there isn't any 🙃
Me: Here's Jesse Singal explicitly agreeing with people who want to ban trans women from public life (restrooms, locker rooms, existing as women) and make it impossible to medically and legally transition.
Okay so on our side we have very near unanimous agreement within the trans community that Singal is transphobic. We have agreement from people outside the trans the community (Noah Berlatsky and Nicole Cliffe to name two who are at least somewhat known) that he's transphobic.
But a bunch of randos here are only hanging out in our mentions because Singal was sad enough to lie about Jude Ellison and think their singular, atomized skepticism is somehow more convincing than, well, as I said above
I imagine these people in old age, their great grandkids coming to them with these tweets, asking "why did you defend scum of the Earth Jesse Singal to people who neither knew you nor cared that you existed?"
Possibly one of the most ridiculous things this thread brought about was the sheer number of Singal stans who launch themselves into the replies to defend Singal from the charge of "transphobe" but do not say a single word about the fact Jesse insisted someone else secretly
agreed with him, even after learning that someone else called him a clown
Not a single one of them addressed this obvious bad faith nonsense
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's pretty invasive how cis people take it upon themselves to lecture trans people on what they believe isn't transphobia, to the point that they'll say "sure, this person wants you and everyone like you to die, but they said they support a few critical rights for trans people"
"Sure, he defends a well known conversion therapist, and argues that trans kids can't really be sure they're really trans, but he never *said* he supported conversion therapy, so you can't say he does."
"Sure she said trans women are a threat to cis women and girls but she also said she'd march in a trans rights parade so how can you say she's transphobic?"
Wondering if I should go through the Zucker and Atlantic articles line by line and show that a reasonable person can in fact conclude that Jesse "Slime Weasel" Singal supports conversion therapy for trans kids. The people in Jude Doyle's mentions right now are relying on a
shallow reading of the article where he never actually says the words "I support conversion therapy" while ignoring all insinuations and outside context.
Do people remember how he got information for the Atlantic article from at least one ROGD-promiting website?
The gee cees were hecking mad he didn't credit them for information he received from them. Anyway, if I did do this it would be because virtue singal threatens legal action against people who speak of him in any terms not reserved for the highest of angels. And it'd be an article
It's wild how virtually the entire UK press is just straight up telling lies about trans people. You'd think journalists would have, IDK, *ethics* or something.
Obviously at this point the entire notion of journalistic ethics is a cruel joke, esp in the UK where they constantly publish lies about trans people that if they were aimed at individual people would be considered libelous. The US has all that right wing news too, so the UK
isn't alone in that. Plus that article in Australia written by someone *claiming* to be the mother of a trans teen, but is nothing more but the standard ROGD script. "Anonymous?" I'd be surprised if the author were really a cis woman, to be honest, let alone a cis mother.
The complaint linked in the above tweet really shows the problem with American elections. The fact that they say it's unfair that more people voted is just off the walls nonsense. Other countries automatically have everyone of voting age able to vote.
I often see trans people and allies respond to "trans people deny biology" with extensive explanations of how trans people don't deny biology. I suggest in the future a different course: Don't bother. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT TRANS PEOPLE THINK ABOUT BIOLOGY. We still deserve
health care, civil rights, access to appropriate accommodations, and respect. There's this insidious vein of GC discourse in which what trans people say about ourselves is being used to discredit us, but the fact is we can say whatever the hell we want about ourselves and we
still deserve all the things. I don't care if anyone says that they're trans because of reincarnation or socialization or neurological differences, every one of them deserves access to all the the things I listed. Please please I beg of you STOP letting GCs set the debate.