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

[Robert Naiman]

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?

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

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?

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.

What could we do to restore the idea that respect for the First Amendment
is foundational to left culture?

On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 1:08 AM Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss <
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote:

> 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> <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> <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 listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttps://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttps://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/20190328/92d32eb3/attachment-0001.html>