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

[David Johnson]

“ 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. “

 

Excellent point Stuart !  For this topic as well as other analysis.

 

David J. 

 

From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 1:08 AM
To: C G Estabrook; Karen Medina
Cc: Peace-discuss
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nina Paley's panel, "material reality", controlling the debate .... was Re: [Peace] Panel at UFL today at 3

 

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.

      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> <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  <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> <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/20190328/278d620e/attachment-0001.html>