This footnote by Amia Srinivasan, taken from her book, the Right to Sex, poses the question in a useful way. It is a hard question that is part of the psychosexual pre-history of our times. I will feel I have satisfied my purpose as I writer when I have answered it.
What I like about the framing is the way at looks at two pieces by the same author and uses it as a lens to look at the way the world change. Here are two of my favorites: salon.com/2005/09/20/kun…
The story told in Srinivasan's sequence is in a way the same story told in mine. This is the story that hasn't quite been told, merely acted out by the culture industries.
The question is not hard in itself, it just becomes hard because of all the ways the culture has become involuted, but the work of writing is to master those involutions in such a manner as to make them straight them again
The rhetoric of the prior tweet is sure to be parsed as illustrative. And it is!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Obstreperous women coming into the mentions of myself and others relentlessly repeating stock phrases such as "a woman is not a castrated man," eventually made me realize that when you touch grass and wake up from the relentless ideological programming, what they are saying is 100 percent true without qualification, that these facts are decisive and resolve every question while refraining from recognizing them as true without qualification hands victory to the other, wrong side.
It's my goal to do for others what was done for me.
Yes to be deradicalized is to be radicalized, because one becomes aware of the extent of the institutional coup that made it necessary to be deradicalized
An older friend of mine literally said "I refuse to learn anything about this" -- revealing sound instincts about the perils of learning about this, for the malfeasance one witnesses after learning what really happened here is impossible to unsee.
The term for this is Thomas Piketty's "Brahmin Left" -- a left bereft of working class voters.
The mass basis of these parties is actually a nominally credentialed pseudo-intelligentsia created by the dramatic expansion of higher education -- a class of therapeutic state functionaries attending to an ever proliferating cast of victim classes that replace the proletariat as the subject of history.
Ruy Texeira, famously the author of the book that predicted back in 2002 that a coalition of minorities and educated white people would construct a ruling coalition that would dominate the country for a generation calls for a de-Brahminization of the Democratic party and the emergence of a political entrepeneur to enact a hostile takeover of the party from its elites.
"That entrepreneur will have to be unafraid of the professional class blowback (accusations that you are racist, sexist, transphobic, a bigot, MAGA-lite, etc.) that will inevitably arise and aggressively push back against that class and its priorities."
A group of British transgender activists issues open letter listing their demands of the UK government in wake of recent Supreme Court ruling that trans women aren't women
Medical demands include fully taxpayer funded provision of:
-- 200 hours of electrolysis
-- Facial surgery
-- "Any gender non-conforming surgeries"
-- "Full compensation paid to any transgender people who have been forced to pay for private treatment due to the failures of the NHS to address the issues faced in accessing gender affirming care."
This is actually just the baseline. That this totalitarian exertion is being deployed in all earnestness on behalf of so self-evidently frivolous and narcissistic a set of goals is the news.
The reason transgender inclusion in women's sports is "deeply unfair" is that:
1.) Men have a physical advantage over women
2.) Trans women are men
In lieu of acknowledging these two facts, the Democratic party calls women and girls begging them to put an end to deep unfairness Nazis.
Of course some elements of the party (and journalists throughout the mainstream media and "scientists" at corrupted peer reviewed journals) deny 1.) It's possible for smart guys in the liberal coalition to dispute or even mock such obviously untrue claims.
The thing they can't do is acknowledge 2.)
Some Smart Guys in the liberal coalition claim that it's possible to end the deep unfairness of letting men dominate women in women's sports without acknowledging 2.)
But that's plainly wrong. There is no deep unfairness to end without acknowledging 2.)
Textbook circa 2017 intersectional clusterfuck with white "ciswoman" becoming indignant over black man weaponizing her body in a drive to Otherize trans women. "How dare you?" she inveighs.
"Disingenuous statements about protecting the safety of women have been used as tools of oppression for hundreds of years..."
She's all but accusing him of being one of Emmett Till's murderers.
(A white male colleague asked if his support for women's spaces and sports could be analogized to support for Jim Crow laws days earlier.)
Someone replied to my earlier thread by saying "it must burn these progressives up so bad that he's black."
But based on their conduct toward them, it does not constrain them in any way. The run the same playbook with no deference or alteration at all.
If you look at the intersectional math as revealed in action, trans just trumps everything. Gay, black, female -- counts for zip. Gay black female might as well be Bubba from Mobile next to the white man in a dress.