<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>Stuart's aggressive hostility towards Nina from his first sentence is breathtaking to me. This is a side of Stuart Levy I have never seen before. Did she drop you on your head, Stuart? Is that why you're behaving in this strange un-Stuart-like way? </div><div><br></div><div>"Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the question to be asked, one can control the debate."</div><div><br></div><div>This sentence is loco, Stuart. Nina and her colleagues organized a panel. Of course their views are going to be privileged in a panel that they organized. You think they have an obligation to give equal time in their panel to people who hate them? Is that how you organize an anti-war panel? Do you give equal time to people with pro-war views? Or, do you figure that people who want to air pro-war views can, under the First Amendment which protects us all, air those pro-war views somewhere else?</div><div><br></div><div>Someone told me recently that "young people don't care about the First Amendment anymore." I found that statement astonishing. When I was coming up, respect for the First Amendment was foundational to left culture, strongly shaped by the legacy of the McCarthy period. </div><div><br></div><div>What could we do to restore the idea that respect for the First Amendment is foundational to left culture? </div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:08 AM Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss <<a href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling
the question to be asked, one can control the debate.<br>
<br>
The problem with their specific approach -- adopting one aspect of
humanity and labeling it as Material Reality, as if there weren't
other equally worthy aspects -- is that they use it to devalue the
existence of trans people. <br>
<br>
In the discussion there were listed a number of reasons why someone
might undertake a gender transition, and all the reasons brought up
were, well, unsavory. Young people duped into giving up their birth
gender before they knew what it would mean for them, men wanting
(lesbian?) women as romantic partners, gay men wanting men as
romantic partners, male prisoners wanting to be placed in women's
prisons, men wanting to compete in women's sports, men feeling
burdened by male privilege and wanting to take on the glow of
victimhood by becoming part of an oppressed group, women "cutting
off their breasts" to gain male privilege (this last from an
audience member). Gender dysphoria was mentioned, but I didn't
hear any panelist take it seriously. <br>
<br>
A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by
trans activists.<br>
<br>
Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was
being redefined - by men. <br>
<br>
One of the panelists offered a definition of "intersectionality"
which is the neoliberal perversion of that idea -- where the goal is
to prove how privileged or un-privileged you yourself are, and place
yourself properly in the hierarchy of oppression. This is *not*
the original meaning of the term, and not what we should allow it to
be turned into. The article below gives a better understanding of
it for this context - I've forgotten who posted this recently but
thanks to you if you're reading this:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/" target="_blank">https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/</a><br>
<br>
I don't want to claim that the panel had no legitimate complaints.
And there were some thoughtful things said by some in the audience.
But the above might give a flavor of why some people are very angry
at things Nina has been saying.<br>
<br>
Nina noted that one distinction she wants kept clear was that
between birth sex and gender presentation. In her opinion, laws
protecting women should apply only to the former, not at all to the
latter. <br>
<br>
Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other
alternative gender people under the bus, legally.<br>
<br>
However, one of the audience members struggled for a while and
offered a suggestion that I think could help. The law could, she
proposed, provide separate protections based on sex, on sexual
preference, and on gender presentation. It wouldn't be necessary to
legally redefine women while still protecting trans and other
alternative genders.<br>
<a href="https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/" target="_blank"></a><br>
Stuart<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-cite-prefix">On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via
Peace-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-quote-pre">That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., <a class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/31/science_shows_sex_is_binary_not_a_spectrum_138506.html" target="_blank"><https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/31/science_shows_sex_is_binary_not_a_spectrum_138506.html></a>.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-quote-pre">On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss <a class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank"><peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-quote-pre">that (biological) sex is [binary].
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-quote-pre">It is not.
As a biologist, I say biological sex is NOT binary.
Let us take this one topic on
-karen medina
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="gmail-m_6292578181205086966moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>