I’ve squandered a lot of time today arguing (hello SIWOTI) with people busy claiming I’m a transphobe or a friend and helper of transphobes or at least someone who doesn’t point and hiss loudly enough when a transphobe walks by – and I was rewarded for my efforts by this staggeringly credulous and illiberal comment:
And you know what? Once someone points out her transmisogyny to you, congratulations. She IS a “known transphobe” to you. You thank them for helping you get yourself together…
After the ellipse there’s a stupid jibe about my getting my feelings hurt, which is not the issue at all.
The issue is the very thing denied by that ridiculous assertion. Oh right, once someone – anyone, everyone, it doesn’t matter who, and don’t you dare ask how that someone knows, or where that someone got the information – “points out her transmisogyny” to me, then I automatically know what that someone just told me, because there is no possibility whatsoever that that someone is wrong, or biased, or malicious, or passing on a claim passed on by forty thousand other people all of whom had no reason to believe it either. Listen up, atheists and skeptics: when someone tells you something, then you know that something, because someone just told you it. Believe what you are told, by anyone, no matter who; it’s the skeptic way.
Honest to fucking christ, what is the matter with people? Why am I supposed to take their word for this kind of shit, especially when they model such godawful epistemic practice themselves? What kind of politics do they think they’re creating, if we’re all just supposed to take everyone’s word for everything?
And why take these people at their word when a dozen comments higher up in that thread, some of them are lying outright about you? “Ophelia, you have a long history of linking to TERFs positively” — not once have I seen any such link here. It’s like when WMDKitty declared that you had a “pattern” of transphobia and I badgered her for hours to show me a single example, and her only response was “I’m not going to engage in your weird fetish.” Because yes, apparently wanting proof of some outrageous assertion is a “weird fetish.”
I guess they really think it is.
It’s magical thinking of the purest kind. “The words were uttered, therefore they are true.”
I just read through the linked comments.
I have two words for what I see: motivated reasoning.
I get the need to provide an at-least provisional trust to people who say they’ve been abused, or otherwise harmed, but I’m increasingly getting the feeling that this is being generalised, if only unwittingly, into a format where each and every presumptive advocate – ostensibly a victim or not – is entitled to have all of their assertions treated as true, a priori. I’m all for the former, but not the latter, which is an entirely different proposition.
I’m not sure this generalisation has actually happened, mind you, or if it’s just a case of the second standard arising by coincidence in proximity to the first…
Explicitly stating that “this standard exists in decision making theory in order not to harm vulnerable people thusly”, precludes the suspension of scepticism elsewhere, epistemically, where people get up on a soapbox. I think I’m beginning to see why I was raked over the coals elsewhere on FB, the last time I dared make a distinction.
That some writers are in fact, in competition with each other, asking audiences for money, when getting up on their soapboxes, adds another dimension to all of this. If I had more money to give, I’d be happy to subscribe to more blogs, and give to Patreon accounts, and GoFundMes and whatnot – that’s not my beef (I don’t, simply because I’m poor). It’s that in the context of this marketplace, this dog-eat-dog, aggressive appropriation of critique to sloppily deploy against other writers, or the enabling by writers of such behaviour when directed against their competition, can be fairly described as very, very capitalistic. And cultish to boot. (To be clear, I’m talking about the abuse of critique in social media comments threads, like those cited in the OP – I’m not talking about Alex’s recent post).
I’m not sure this is deliberate cynicism, or just a case of the unwitting internalisation of right-wing norms concerning the use of power in the marketplace; “knock off the opposition by any means, just make sure it looks good to your target audience – give it a superficial sprinkle of social justice flavour if you have to”. At any rate, anything resembling dog-eat-dog market competition, under the mantle of social justice, should give serious lefties pause for reflection.
I’ll end my diatribe now – my train of thought is heading off into the lands of “isn’t this a bit like the way George Galloway supporters behave?”, and I’m about to have breakfast… Nobody needs George Galloway with their breakfast.
Gah…
“I think I’m beginning to see why I was raked over the coals elsewhere on FB, the last time I dared make a distinction.”
Should be…
“I think I’m beginning to see, thanks to this episode, why I was raked over the coals elsewhere on FB, the last time I dared make such a distinction.”
Was trying to link past experience to the current situation…
Also… it may not need saying, but I’ll say it anyway…
Having these two standards in close proximity, with ill-defined boundaries, even if not intertwined exactly, provides a means by which abused people can be exploited as “darlings” of The Cause. First you establish the entirely reasonable standard of not being a dismissive ass to people who say they’ve been abused, before wheeling them on stage to tell their story for as much time as you’re willing to spare. Then after you wheel them off, you proceed to do your soapboxing, treating scepticism of your accusations and assertions as tantamount to being a dismissive ass to people who say they’ve been abused.
Obviously I’m invoking some narrative/metaphorical license with the stage and whatnot, but long-time lefties should be familiar with this pattern of exploitation, broadly speaking. I’m worried that the conditions are right for this kind of thing to run rampant in atheist circles – the wilful/obligatory credulity is certainly a sign.
Now… I had breakfast to eat, and I’m thinking of George Galloway again.
Yes, this.
Anyone who has read Ophelia’s writing for a longer period of time (I’ve been reading B&W for at least five years, probably longer) can confidently state that she is not an exclusionary feminist. In fact, before the giant explosion of a few years ago that led to Atheism+ and the million-long comment thread at SkepChick with people attacking Rebecca Watson, I don’t remember there being much posted here about feminism at all, much less anything exclusionary of trans* folks.
So for people to say that she exhibits a “pattern” or “history” of transphobic behavior is outright horseshit. She has always been a champion of people who need champions. Just repeating a lie that you heard, over and over, does not make it any more true.
I’m really exceedingly disappointed in Alex Gabriel for that thread. For hosting it, for posting a link to Ophelia’s post with what I infer to say “see, this is what I am talking about,” and for refusing to rein in the hateful commentary. If that is the way he rolls, I don’t need to read his blog anymore.
@ 1 MrFancyPants
It’s all guilt by association crap. Look, once Ophelia posted a cartoon ostensibly about mansplaining. Some people pointed out it was by a transphobic artist and there was a hidden subtext (that trans women are men), which wasn’t at all obvious. Informed about this, Ophelia deleted the cartoon.
Then there’s the thing linked upthread in the Facebook discussion linked in the OP. Ophelia objected to “no-platforming” Julie Bindel on the basis of criticising the wearing of the niqab. It’s Bindel who is allegedly a “known transphobe”.
(The only other incident I’m aware of in the “Ophelia is a TERF” dossier is that in a post about the misogyny underlying the Hobby Lobby decision a commenter cracked the shits with Ophelia for not pointing out that trans men can get pregnant too.)
It’s fucking stupid. It’s like saying if Ophelia ever agreed with something Dawkins said about religion then, since Dawkins has said some fucked up things about feminists, she must be an MRA.
Never once, as far as I’m aware, has Ophelia ever actually said, endorsed, agreed with, any comment by anyone disparaging or msigendering trans people. On the contrary she has consistently said that “plumbing” has nothing to do with who you are or how you present.
The “Ophelia is a TERF” meme is complete unmitigated bullshit.
Silentbob@8, THANK YOU. Knowing where these idiots are getting their ammo is invaluable.
Yes, this, exactly. This is why I’m pushing back on any thread that starts up that I can. People just saying this bullshit need to be stopped. I’ve only met Ophelia all of two times, in person (and I had forgotten the first time, a Horde meetup in Seattle), but even if I hadn’t, I would consider her a friend on the basis of online interactions and her passionate commitment to advocacy of those who truly need advocates. That advocacy is actively harmed by these people spreading unsubstantiated lies about her.
My acquired loathing of the term “stupid” aside (this serves as acknowledgement, but now I’ll leave it be), perhaps what you’re looking at here is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Self-serving, implicitly self-aggrandizing, “look at me, aren’t I righteous?” bullshit, at that.
Yep. “I heard she was a TERF and now I’m CALLING HER OUT. Yay me! Where’s my cookie?”
Funny… I was just thinking “even if they were right, they don’t get a cookie!”
Cookies are more of a wehuntedthemammoth.com topic, less seen here on FtB. But just as relevant, clearly. People are piling on to the attack wagon just to get their cookies, and oh boy, are they getting them, Bruce Everett.
Meanwhile, people are still piling on, in that linked thread. So much cookie hunger.
For completeness (you only get to do two links per comment without moderation), here’s a link to the cartoon thing I mentioned @ 8. And an example of the “plumbing irrelevant” attitude I described.
Yes yes UNLESS the person accused of something bad is a popular male thinky-king, and especially if the person doing the accusing is a woman, in which case a good sceptic puts on their scepticism-fedora and waves everything away until it is proven in court.
And 7 billion people, including the bulk of Butterflies and Wheels readership, have no clue what a ‘TERF’ IS.
Trans issues are one more place where think-skinned attitudes and prefabricated grievance flood out perfectly reasonable discussion.
Whole lot of trans people are well aware of what a TERF is John, although I’m sure they’d love to share your ignorance.
Trans women in the UK have been denied access to women’s shelters by TERFS, hardly safe for trans women to be on the street, but gotta protect those “women’s spaces”. This is not uncommon, there are UK shelters and charities who have the TERF view that trans women need to be kept out, they are “dangerous men”. As do some UK feminist groups, trans women as a result often avoid feminist spaces. TERFS were involved in getting a bill passed that denied trans people life saving healthcare, given what we know about the lack of treatment and suicide in trans people it’s not that hyperbolic to say TERFs have been involved in the deaths of trans people. They still promote the idea that healthcare for trans people is in some way wrong, they are “mutilating” themselves. Against the evidence they oppose treatment of trans kids, calling it child abuse (despite recent studies showing trans kids who have been given puberty blockers are as happy or happier than their peers.) They have worked with the ex-gay pacific institute to demonise a 16yr old trans girl wanting to use the girls restroom at school. The idea that trans women (and girls) can use the women’s restroom is opposed by them, they are “mentally ill men” who want access to “women’s spaces”. They support discredited “ex-gay” therapy for trans people as they believe trans women particularly are “confused”, although not quite what they say. Trans men are similarly confused gender non-conforming women according to them. They viciously harass trans women online, doxxing them and outing them to employers and family …
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism, for info… Probably the cleverest thing they’ve done is spread this “TERF is a slur” meme all over the place. Helped by high profile feminists who are happy to associate with all of the above but keep most of the overt transphobia to themselves. Frankly it’s a horrendous chapter in feminism, hopefully one on the way out, but ignorance of what “TERF” means won’t help that. Ignorance of the vast amounts of dehumanising transphobia from high profile feminists won’t help that. Trans people, women in particular, have been betrayed by cis feminism over decades.
So maybe 7 billion people and the bulk of B&W readership should know what a TERF is? (Scratch the 7 billion, but I’d expect people reading a trans inclusive feminist blog to have a clue)
I love how you’re just so very very hurt at being called a transphobe. Not that, you know, you have a long history of hurting trans people, but you’re just so upset that someone might imply that you’re not the bestest feminist who ever feministed (your cis friends told you so!). Poor baby.
I mean, you quote transmisogynists, you automod trans people and let TERFs comment, but you’re not a transphobe. And of course it’s all a campaign to smear poor widdle Ophelia, not a legitimate pointing out of a history you have taken pains to delete.
I’m so embarrassed for you.
Do you? So you missed the second paragraph? The one where I disavowed the stupid claim about my having hurt feelings?
And if you really mean that – how unpleasant you are, being pleased that someone is so very hurt. I’m not – I’m disgusted and contemptuous, but not hurt – but if I were, what a shitty thing that would be to say.
And everything after that is just vulgar abuse. You’re really something.
“There’s one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian.”
Guess who said that? That’s right, Adolph Hitler. I just quoted Hitler. By the logic exhibited in the comments over at Alex Gabriel’s facebook thread, I am now a Nazi.
Spread the word, everyone!
[meta + OT]
The screencap above shows a name other than the one to which you refer in the body.
This makes me very uncomfortable.
Does it?
And yet she chose to post both of those comments in public, using identical tropes and insults. That’s not my fault.
Ophelia, your blog, your call.
Thing is, you’ve linked a nym to a name, in image form locally stored*, and without the information you have provided, only a determined web and Facebook search could possibly establish that link.
Please consider how much of your point would be lost were the name to be obscured.
—
* Even if the linked post were deleted, your image would remain.
You could try to gender me properly, I mean, you know full well I’m not a woman. And I do love that you have my name and photo up, good thing I don’t have stalkers- oopsie! But don’t let a trans person’s safety get in the way of your delicate little ego. I thought you’d flounced from Alex’s thread anyway? I mean, your collection of shitty little cis cheerleaders aren’t there for you.
And yes, you should feel bad for your repeated, insistent transphobia and transmisogyny (and ableism, and racism), but I know you won’t, because self-reflection isn’t so much your thing.
That you think being told over and over and over by trans people that you really should not speak for us is abuse shows that you have no sense of proportion, and are simply concerned with your own ego above everything else.
HappiestSadist and I, we are not friends, but I think that this stinks.
Woah, you have superpowers! You can automod trans people and let TERFs comment! Most of us need to actually meet someone, or at least read their comments, before knowing who’s who, but you can automatically do it! (HappiestSadist seems to also know who’s cis without being told. Weird. I barely even have gaydar myself.)
Ok, I took the screencap down.
Alethea – I know – HappiestSadist also seems to think I know everything about…I don’t know what pronoun to use. I have literally no clue if “you know full well I’m not a woman” is sarcasm or literal or…some third thing that I can’t even imagine. I know nothing about HappiestSadist apart from the revolting comments.
You certain have something approximating the language of a demagogue down, HappiestSadist. If you have not yet considered it, might I suggest a career in politics?
When has Ophelia ever “spoken for” trans people? Pretty sure she speaks for herself.
Silentbob at #8 detailed all the incidents that HappiestSadist is calling “a long history of hurting trans people.”
I am sure trans people are not such delicate flowers as HappiestSadist seems to think.
oolon is right, the history of TERF is awful.
So is Guilt-by-association and the reactionary branding of people as “garbage.”
[meta]
HappiestSadist, as I see it, it’s mistaken to chide Ophelia for attempting (never mind claiming!) to speak for you. But we’re all in the realm of opinion, here… facts are sparse and ambiguous at best.
In short: false positive.
(Confirmation bias is only an element of motivated reasoning)
John Morales@32:
Perhaps I am just being thick, but where has Ophelia “spoken for trans people,” or claimed to?
I went back and reread Silentbob@8’s links. In the first one, Ophelia was exploring the notion of allowing or denying agency of muslim women who choose to or choose not to wear the niqab. The second was an analysis of the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS opinion that provided a contraception coverage exception for people who can become pregnant.
Ophelia’s sins were, apparently, that in the first case she was focused on the narrow topic at hand and was not aware that one of the persons objecting to the niqab was Bindel, the “known transphobe,” and in the second case, that she did not clarify that it’s not just women who can become pregnant.
These sins, if they even are that, are at best venial. And for them, she is labeled “ableist, racist, transphobic trash”. Here’s the thing: Ophelia is a writer who analyzes ideas, and like anyone involved in such analysis, she is focused. Neither of those blog posts were about trans people, or transphobic issues. The first was about agency and the niqab, the second was about healthcare subsidies. This should be totally obvious by Ophelia’s reaction to CaitieCat, who brought up the pregnancy objection to the latter:
And Ophelia’s response:
You know what I interpreted from that? Not “transphobia”, but rather “I’d rather that we stay on topic. This is not about trans men, or trans issues, this is a post about the SCOTUS decision regarding healthcare; we do not need to bring anything else into the discussion at this time. There is a time and place for everything.”
From what I’ve seen over the last few days, there is absolutely no way to satisfy the objections of everyone. Ophelia can comment on a news article by some columnist that she knows nothing about and be branded transphobic because that columnist once said totally unrelated TERFy things. Or she can post something about “women” and be taken to task for not acknowledging trans women. Or she can say “trans women” and oolon will object because “there’s no need to say ‘trans'”. (Not to pick on you oolon, I admire you and I know you have a keen social justice instinct.)
We have to be able to focus narrowly on subject matter sometimes. I get that “giving a platform” to a transphobic columnist, by quoting them in a public posting, could be problematic. But if the subject of the quote is completely unrelated to trans issues, then what is the justification for the extreme vitriol from HappiestSadist? It’s disproportionate, and unseemly, and it doesn’t help. Ophelia is not transphobic, and she’s not an enemy of trans people. Making up these bizarre attacks only hurts everyone.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to block health care for anyone, in the UK or anywhere else, or who cooperates w/an ex-gay institution is not a feminist of any kind. Much less a TER feminist.
That was HappiestSadist’s claim, MrFancyPants.
True, Lady Mondegreen. I misinterpreted John’s remark to mean that he thought she had. My apologies, John Morales.
HappiestSadist: consider the question redirected towards yourself.
Actually… you don’t do that straight away. Instead, you remember that you have the knowledge of the world at your fingertips.
Wikipedia on the subject of Bindel’s newspaper articles about trans* issues. Bindel is a regular contributor to the Guardian.
Read that, and I think you’ll agree all those people in that Facebook thread weren’t making things up about Bindel.
Oh, and…
Where did you get “she” from then? Were you randomly guessing? I thought the usual way to talk about pseudonymous people with unknown preferences is to use “they”?
I think it appropriate to note at this point that the name in the now deleted screencap referred to above was one typically used by a woman.
…But if our esteemed host knows enough about HappiestSadist to identify them with their Fb name, I’m a bit surprised she hasn’t remembered one or two other basic things about them.
Ophelia knew this person on Facebook for a long time and has, in the past, deleted or modded comments clarifying their gender identity. Much like with Bindel, she at the very least had no excuse for not knowing.
I notice that no apology for misgendering, regardless of whether or not Ophelia acknowledges having known them, seems to be forthcoming.
Yeah, it’s not like I’ve told you I’m trans before, or my FB indicates my gender. Or we were FB friends for quite some times. OOPSIE!
And I could tell that you were letting TERFs comment because they were talking about trans people in intensely transmisogynist ways, and other trans people I know were being modded.
Like, you’re not even a good liar?
David Marjanović @ 38 – from the name in the email address that HappiestSadist uses to log in here. I usually see comments first via the dashboard, where the email address is visible.
[HappiestSadist actually posted @ 41 12 hours ago but was held in mod – for reasons that I think are probably obvious – until now. I changed the time stamp to avoid confusion – that is, so that it would appear after comments that were made before the commenters saw that comment.]
So.
David Marjanović @ 40 – I don’t see why you’re surprised. A lot of people comment here, and I have a lot of Facebook friends. HS hasn’t commented very often, or recently. My memory is crap, as I’ve said many times – it’s always crap, plus as the slyme pitters like to point out, I have terrible dementia.
In short, I don’t remember all these details about HS. I don’t remember any of them. HS doesn’t loom large in my life, so I didn’t pay much attention.
HappiestSadist @ 41 – I’m not lying. I still have no idea what your preferred pronouns are. You’ve said quite a few untrue things about me, here and on Alex Gabriel’s public Facebook thread, so I think it’s pretty unbecoming in you to call me a liar for not remembering details about someone as belligerent and obnoxious as you are. You’re not important to me, so I haven’t filed your personal details. I don’t care enough to remember them. You brought yourself to my attention yesterday by talking all that shit about me on Alex Gabriel’s public Facebook thread, that’s all.
I hope that clears up that bogus little mystery.
I’ll repeat myself:
Silentbob at #8 detailed all the incidents that HappiestSadist is calling “a long history of hurting trans people.”
I am sure trans people are not such delicate flowers as HappiestSadist seems to think.
oolon is right, the history of TERF is awful.
So is Guilt-by-association and the reactionary branding of people as “garbage.” [And “trash” and “right wing.”]
I’ll add something:
The problem isn’t that anyone’s feelings are hurt by this self-righteous crap. Lies, exaggerations, and sloppy thinking are the problems. Lies, exaggerations, and sloppy thinking are always problems, no matter their target. Even when their promulgators imagine their motives to be pure. Especially then.
However awful the history of TERF is, the awfulness doesn’t make me a TERF. I don’t need oolon’s magisterial lectures on TERFs when the subject of this thread is how we know things and how fatuous it is to say we know things once someone says them.
Sorry, Lady M, that wasn’t aimed at you, but at oolon and his irrelevant lecture which seems designed to intensify the campaign to have me officially declared a TERF.
I don’t think oolon’s lecture was irrelevant, and I don’t think it was designed to further impugn you, Ophelia. As I read it, he was responding to a specific comment by johnthedrunkard and providing important information.
Wow. You really completly mischaracterized what the problem was and what that person was saying.
Cant say im surprised at this point. But you could, for once, stop talking and think about how you might ne wrong. Instead of your usual of deleting comments and threads until everybody forgets what you said originally and therefore next time you say something transmisogynist (or support a transmisogynist) there’s nothing concrete for your critics to point to so you can pretend that you dont have a history of ignoring and silencing trans women.
Well, that’s a lie, for a start. Also, I have no idea who you are.
This is horseshit, and do you want to know why? Because there’s a real thing called a screen capture that we all damn well know about and which these so-called critics would have been using long ago if there were any substance to these allegations, since their prevailing narrative is that “Ophelia deletes the evidence!”. The reason why there is “nothing concrete for … critics to point to” is because there is, in actual fact, nothing concrete for her critics to point to.
All their screen caps got swept away by a flood.
That ought to fucking tell you something.
That “history” is toxic bullshit being spread around by a toxic individual who is unable to support her claims.
Disagreeing with some individuals is not “ignoring and silencing.”
@ 41 gertrud
Yes, Ophelia! Where’s your apology for being so rude as to call someone who just labelled you “ableist, racist, transphobic trash” something so offensive as “she”? Have you no shame?
(/sarcasm)
@54 Silentbob:
Someone who was using a typically female name, too.
This whole misgendering thing is silly. If I don’t know or remember you and I get the pronoun wrong, just tell me what to use instead, and I’ll be happy to accomodate. We STILL don’t know what pronoun HappiestSadist prefers. Even if Ophelia knew, which obviously she doesn’t, it seems like common courtesy to the rest of us to let us know, so that we can get it right and not make a mistake and thereby be demonized.
@ 55 MrFancyPants
No, I wouldn’t go that far. There are certainly times when apologizing for misgendering is appropriate. Assuming the default male for a pseudonymous commenter, because that carries a lot of sexist baggage. Or, of course, when it’s deliberately disrespectful, like calling Caitlyn Jenner, “he”.
My sarcastic point wasn’t that apologizing for misgendering is inappropriate, but that if we’re going to talk about apologies the onus would seem to be several orders of magnitude greater on the other side.
@56 Silentbob:
As soon as I hit “Post Comment” I realized that I wasn’t being clear enough. I should have said that I think that “this whole misgendering *in this case* is silly.” I agree with you that there are certainly times when people should apologize for doing it. I just don’t think that this is one of those times, and that Ophelia has nothing to apologize for. HappiestSadist or his/her/their/xir friend could enlighten us as to which pronoun is appropriate, and we could start using it right away, instead of the two of them being cagey and preferring to engage in intellectually dishonest attacks.
Really, is it so hard to just tell us which pronoun you prefer, HappiestSadist? Absolutely nobody here has even implied that they intentionally want to misgender you. It’s a lot easier to get it right if you just state your preference outright.
Oops, dead thread and I missed Ophelia thinking I’m impugning her. Stacy is right, it was not aimed at you. I would also think some magisterial criticism of things terfs have done that are pretty clearly horrendous would make it clear you are no terf by those standards! Although I may be damning you with faint praise there 😉
Ophelia– The OP is really sidetracking from the point that was being made, which is that you linked to Julie Bindel and agreed with her. When told that she was a well-known transphobe, you professed not to know that.
YOU are responsible for doing your research. If you link to a known transphobe, you should know that. Even if you aren’t linking to her talking about trans issues, Bindel is very very well known on this issue. Even if you didn’t recognize Bindel’s name offhand, it could have been solved with a quick Google search, which is frankly the least amount of effort I would expect from a person who blogs professionally. I am not even offended that you link/quote Bindel (although I think you should have included a parenthetical about her track record on trans issues) but that you didn’t know? That makes your work look badly researched. I mean, it’s just as bad as my students quoting from the American Enterprise Institute without acknowledging their known political bias.
When people educate you on something, you either 1. believe them (if you trust them) or 2. verify the info for yourself and then correct your mistake. I don’t see you doing that at all. And that’s more than a little disturbing.