[Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3

[Stuart Levy]

Nina and her panel used a familiar rhetorical trick: by controlling the
question to be asked, one can control the debate.

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.    

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.  

A recurring theme was predatory behavior by trans people - and by trans
activists.

Also that what it means to be a woman, legally and socially, was being
redefined - by men.

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:

   
https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/

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.

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.    

Of course if you accept that, you are throwing trans and other
alternative gender people under the bus, legally.

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.
<https://www.ijfab.org/blog/2018/05/why-trans-exclusionary-feminism-is-bad-for-everyone/>
      Stuart



On 3/27/19 6:32 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote:
> That’s hardly a unanimous opinion: e.g., <https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/31/science_shows_sex_is_binary_not_a_spectrum_138506.html>.
>
>
>
>> On Mar 27, 2019, at 6:21 PM, Karen Medina via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:
>>
>>> that (biological) sex is [binary].
>> 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
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20190328/6bbf0e1b/attachment.html>