One from last Saturday, that I missed because there’s a lot. I’m missing most of it, I promise you. I hear reports, but I don’t see most of it.
It’s on Melby’s blog. Melby is one of the worst. The post is by H J Hornbeck. It starts on a friendly note, to soften you up.
It was about a year ago, I think, that I walked up to Ophelia Benson and said she was my favorite blogger on FtB. I adore her writing style, which feels like a conversation between old friends, and her frequent posts on international news were a breath of fresh air.
Even as those words were escaping my lips, though, I could see clouds on the horizon. I got burned by a TERF comic she once posted, which led me to do some research into Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism. The glib summary is “lesbians freaking out over potential penis,” which is surprisingly accurate.
Bam! the trap snaps shut on your paw.
It wasn’t a “TERF comic.” It was a comic done by someone who is (I’m told, and I take their word for it, which judging by the last few weeks may be a mistake) a TERF. Not a TERF comic but a comic posted by a TERF. In other words I did not knowingly post a TERF comic – the content wasn’t about trans issues.
So right at the outset he’s poisoned the well – he’s been dishonest. I did not post a TERF comic.
More worrying to me was what Benson didn’t do: learn from the situation. I saw no evidence she took a step back and reconsidered, on the contrary she went stony silent and refused to be pigeonholed. I brushed this off, but pinned a mental note in case it happened again.
Oh my god, I refused to be pigeonholed! Can you imagine?!
Take a step back and reconsider what? I didn’t do anything wrong. It’s easy to post good stuff by people who also do crappy things. It’s not something worth dragging people over the coals for. It’s not an issue. It’s an accident. Move on.
There’s a tension between the idea that gender is socially constructed and we get to shape it any way we want to, and the idea that it’s firmly binary and we are one or the other with no overlap or shaping allowed. This whole thing is just riddled with tensions, and it’s not transphobic to try to think about them.
It’s only in hindsight that can I explicity see the TERF influence.
Ahhhhhh now that’s a telling phrase. Maybe in “hindsight” he’s not seeing it, but constructing it or imagining it or projecting it. Maybe he’s reasoning backward from all these frantic claims by frothingly rabid Watchers, and deciding there is “TERF influence” simply because he’s been told it so many times. Point and hiss.
We also do not get to shape our constructs arbitrarily if we hope to use them as explanations. The tension is not from the interplay of constructs and reality, it’s from the misunderstanding of constructs in order to hide your bigotry.
That’s nice. That’s charming. That’s pleasant. Based on nothing so far, he’s decided I’m a bigot.
There’s a lot more ugly shit but that’s a good enough sample.
This will end at some point. I’ll talk about other things as soon as people let me.
Feh, that’s nothing. I grew up listening to rapist comedy (Cosby). As an adult, I moved on to the hard stuff — child rape films (Polanski). Why, I once or twice even listened to Nazi music (Wagner)!
Hopefully H.J. Hornbeck is taking careful mental notes so my indictment can be complete and accurate.
I know one isn’t supposed to use any terms or references that could be labeled hyperbole (the new philosophical sin?), but this sure does come across as Red Scare stuff. You quoted or linked to the wrong people. You failed to aggressively self-criticize. You didn’t reconsider. You didn’t renounce. You didn’t acknowledge the forbidden influence. You are now on the list. So, Ophelia: Are you know or have you ever been?
I loved the original Road Warrior, and laughed at other Mel Gibson movies.
I think Jon Voight’s “speck of dirt” speech in Runaway Train is one of the best movie speeches ever.
I Spy was a classic TV show, IMO.
screechy @ 1 –
That reminds me. “Jade Hawk” and Melby are collecting a massive archive of screenshots on Facebook – I was told they had over a hundred yesterday. This is all screenshots to do with Evil me. The ones I saw were all of the blog – you know, the thing you can see any time just by looking at it.
How far back must the purity extend before it’s considered pure enough? Is one level of removal good enough? I mean, sure, if I quote something that Hitler said, I’m a nazi, or at least nazi-sympathizer, no matter what the context. We’ve established that in the course of all this arguing back and forth. But if I quote someone *else* who once quoted Hitler, and everything else that person did is ideologically pure, do I get to remain Pure™? It’s so confusing. I wish someone would lecture at me on it, and explain it. Surely there are some people out there who are experts in this, self-appointed or otherwise.
Ophelia @4,
Yes, but only in hindsight, with the benefit of the secret decoder ring, can one see the obvious connection between you, the TERFs, the Reverse Vampires, and the Saucer People.
MrFancyPants @ 5:
How far back? Farther.
I can’t decide if I think I should’ve been paying more attention or not. I usually find out about these things some time after the fact, once they’ve become the source of some Deep Rift or other… no such things on the horizon here, I hope?
For what it’s worth, you’ve never seemed particularly TERFy to me.
Mind you, I’m not (by my understanding) trans unless you’re (in my personal opinion) loose with the definition of trans, not a woman of any kind, and haven’t been paying a great deal of attention recently, so it could be that I miss things, but the worst I’ve seen from you is, as quoted, linking to a comic posted by a TERF, and… well… I quite like Ender’s Game… so… can’t really criticise that without getting hit in the face by the hypocrisy hammer.
As for the quoted thing about there being a “tension between the idea that gender is socially constructed and we get to shape it any way we want to, and the idea that it’s firmly binary and we are one or the other with no overlap or shaping allowed.” Well… yeah, there is.
I think it’s wrong to assume that that’s what’s presented, but if that’s what’s being presented, it’s clearly contradictory. I think it’s reasonable to believe, as I think I’ve said on this forum before, that there’s some sort of core of manness or womanness that someone could just have in them (or not have) and which would define them as one or the other, and that practically all of the rest is socially constructed, but it cannot be that they’re both entirely fixed and entirely socially constructed.
Of course, if someone were to have a gendery core to them that was opposite to what society marked them out as, then in order to be recognised as that which they are at the core, they would have to play up the socially constructed aspects, leading to an apparent supporting of the idea that the socially constructed aspects were fixed and unshapeable, when they’re actually just trying to get a society that’s obsessed with its constructed notions of gender to recognise that core within them.
…apologies in advance if there’s anything in there that comes across awkwardly or dismissively of anyone, it’s very much not intended that way. Well, awkward is unavoidable, but I hope there’s nothing dismissive.
One regular Pharyngula commenter has written on several blogs that you, Ophelia, made a racist statement by referring to that Oolon guy being “after scalps”. Offensive to Native Americans, you see.
Who, which blogs?
Here’s the “Jade Hawk” post, which is public:
https://www.facebook.com/jade.hawk.9/timeline/story?ut=43&wstart=0&wend=1438412399&hash=6150983421626675832&pagefilter=3
They’re updating it live. Your comments are there – smile, you’re on Candid Camera!
Yes you, all of you; by commenting here you get yourself a part in the dossier “Jade Hawk” and Melby are compiling to take to the FBI.
Giliell said it here and called it a horrible thing to say in a comment (#11) on Heather’s post.
Jeezus.
Athywren @ #8
I think that pretty much sums it up.
And when you’re working to alter or at least minimize those constructed notions of gender (which have only been more codified in the last 20 yrs) seeing trans women being held up by the media as ultra feminine is worrying. Being a woman is not the consumable trappings of the social construct. It’s not long hair, make up, mani-pedis, high heels and tight dresses, or meeting the “I would bang her” level on the He-Man Bangometer.
And, I bet you that trans women know that very fucking well. I bet they know that their gender is more than the constructed trappings of femininity. But that narrative doesn’t make for good press. Good press is made by presenting only trans women who meet the cis and hetero-normative standards of beauty and femininity. So the dialogue is limited to the superficial, to the construct, and to speculation about genitalia. Instead of making life better for all trans women, we celebrate the conventionally beautiful while constraining them in a gender construct that pleases the status quo. (See? All girls are princesses at heart. Who really love shoes, for some reason.) All other women – trans,cis or otherwise – need not apply.
Look, as a feminist, I am so past wondering if trans women are women. Inasmuch as I understand what a “woman” is then yes, trans women are women. My concern is de-constructing the idea of “womanhood” in all its variations; by race, class, ethnicity, religion, or sexual identity. If I can’t have that discussion without being accused of being a transphobe, then those accusers will have to pick up the shattered pieces of their lives and move the fuck on. The work and dialogue will continue without you.
For the record, if I had any doubt about whether trans women are women, I only have to compare their treatment to the treatment of trans men. Chaz Bono can transition in relative peace while Laverne Cox is asked questions about her genitalia. Trans men’s bodies are private and trans women’s bodies are for public discussion. Do you need any more proof that they are women?
Maybe those people on facebook should get some tips from all the conspiracy nuts to continue their “work”. Or maybe they already have… Going through the whole blog history picking and interpreting posts and comments to fit your narrative certainly looks similar and as valuable.
The earliest recorded instances of scalping was attributed to the Scythians (modern day Iranians) by Herodotus, a full 2000 yrs before first contact with the new world. It is not an American aboriginal tradition. And, while it is a common misconception that aboriginal peoples committed acts of scalping, it was a practice more prevalent among European settlers.
In Europe, be-heading your dead enemies was preferred by scalping was taken up in the New World for ease of transportation of the trophies.
Ophelia @4,
A curated collection, I expect.
(mmmm… cherries!)
(Waves cheerily…)
Hey, guys!
(/Oh, don’t mind me. I just like being surveilled. Makes me feel important.)
Please include this post in your briefcase full of super secret, important evidence.
Please do not include this post in your briefcase full of super secret, important evidence. It is not germane to the case.
I mean seriously, though, does that seem a like a productive use of one’s time?
You know, old Joe didn’t actually have any lists, he just had a briefcase full of booze.
It is all getting ridiculous. I asked another blog: what is the purpose of vilifying you? It would be helpful to have people talk about how your comments triggered certain feelings for them. It may be that some people feel rejected or marginalized by certain comments.
You did have a post acknowledging people’s feelings but it may help to acknowledge the distress people are feeling and the reasons for the distress. I keep hoping that there is a way of moving the discussion away from who is right, who is wrong.
I still hope you don’t leave FtB. As I said, I’ll follow you wherever. I probably still have my rss setup for the old bw.
I heard that you are the 2nd or 3rd most popular blog at FtB. PZ just shut down the hate-fest that was driving a lot of his return traffic. You’re kind of a big deal now. You hold all the cards, no?
Thomas1967:
That’s a current trope in the pit.
(Where did you hear that?)
Isn’t Melby a “she”?
Which make this post transphobic, because you are all-knowing and therefore only ever misgender someone on purpose. I blame Obama.
John Morales@24:
Ophelia has mentioned elsewhere that her blog is the #3 most-read blog at FtB. Hence she drives a lot of revenue to the network. Her leaving will, indeed, be a revenue blow, but I very much doubt that it will be a lethal one. No single person’s work is usually all-important to an organization, and FtB can always recruit more bloggers. The important result of Ophelia leaving FtB would be the cessation (one hopes) of some of her current colleagues attacking her, and a fresh start in a setting under more of her own control, I imagine.
I wonder if it has occurred to them that their obsessiveness is approaching slymepit levels…
I loved that movie. I also like some of Polanski’s AND Woody Allen’s movies.
Oh, and… a serial rapist and murderer used to live in my house and drive me to school.
And I feel no shame.
@ Holms:
That is something I simply don’t understand. Do those collecting feel that our bloghostess is going to do what Chris Rodda did and delete all her content? If OB is really the anti-trans person they claim (which I don’t buy), this almost ritualized shaming process is not the most effective way to demonstrate that. To put it mildly. There’s also the added bonus of implying that people commenting on B&W threads are potential targets of … something.
Basically, have the “archivers” never heard of the Wayback Machine or similar tools?
I’ve lost a lot of respect for some people, is all I can say. The stated goal of advocacy is wearing extremely thin; now it appears simply vindictive. Of course, I’m not privy to everything going on, but the tactics on display are discouraging to say the least. I feel I have to include a #NotAllCritics tag here, because I do think there are significant topics to be explored, but how can that possibly happen in this environment?
On that note, it’s also worth noting that I now routinely Google ‘nyms to make sure people have a history here. The anti-SJW crowd is out in full force, trolling and inciting. That just makes the whole thing worse: this is the environment in which some people are continuing to escalate, which I can’t consider anything but an own goal.
“He” refers to the author of the excerpted post, not the owner of the blog where it was posted. From the OP:
Well, some of them have. For example, here’s the Free Pride post with some of the comments that later disappeared (there were more after that, but they were not captured). I want to apologize if my last comment there was unclear and thus contributed to the genesis of the clusterfuck – “the point” in my second paragraph refers to the Dolezal joke, but given the first paragraph, it may be read as supporting the “are trans women women” question.
Z:
If you want to conditionally apologise, why not actually do it?
I wrote it that way because I don’t know if the comment was read the way I intended, in some other way, or just ignored. It’s not the usual “I’m sorry if you were offended (which you obviously are)”, it’s “I tossed a ball, I don’t know where it landed, sorry if it was in your garden”.
Yes, Z, I know you wrote it that way because you will only apologise if a certain condition is met.
(I want to believe you)
I tell you what, if I ever needed another reason to be paranoid about revealing my identity in social media, or to avoid expressing any views in public, this would be it. Any woman willing to do so in public is incredibly brave; Ophelia, I respect the fact that you’ve chosen to make your voice heard, and am heartily sorry that doing so is causing you so much distress.
Thanks for clarifying, Z.
I don’t want Ophelia to leave either: I’m almost entirely a lurker, but B&W has learned me some good thinkz. Not only do I love her original posts, but pretty much all of the B&W guest posts have been perspicacious and surprisingly well-chosen. So I think that shows the quality of the B&W folks.
Being part of FTB adds a hugely unpredictable element because it’s a weirdly mismatched blog collective, and that’s uncomfortably like real life; it’s a good thing.
But if Ophelia decides that the pile-on nastiness from the more vocal elements of the commentariat is just too much to stay, then I will bookmark and follow to next-gen B&W. And FTB will have been changed for the worse.
Apparently “confirmation bias” now means that you decide someone is biased and then go looking for confirmation. This is horrible. I’m sorry you have to face this kind of atmosphere, and I will definitely follow B&W rather than the rest of FtB if I have to choose.
PatrickG #29 said
I have often searched nyms for history and then abandoned already-drafted comments, deciding that I just couldn’t bear the consequences of being misunderstood (in good faith or bad faith) by long-history and long-memory commenters with short fuses. That’s why I mostly listen and lurk.
Im not sure what to make of all this. I put my toe in the water in the Lounge a while back and was given good advice to watch and listen and start slowly. So I did. Now the Lounge has been deleted and and the welcoming people there (Hi Tony!) are adrift.
On top of that Alex and Jason have combined with another blogger Oloon to school Ophelia on how to be a feminist. Meanwhile Jadehawk (who did stirling work at Geta’s pinning the slimepit’s colours to the mast) is compiling a matching list for this blog.
What the hell is the matter here? All i can say is hang in there Ophelia. I appreciate your international focus and I appreciate your independance and energy, i won’t condescend to offer you anything more than these kind words.
sawells @ 37 –
Heh – you don’t have to choose. There won’t be any magic filter that, if you read my blog, will prevent you from seeing FTB.
Not unless they create one at least.
No magical filter, that’s true. But a personal, ethical filter, perhaps. Engaging with the larger FTB ecosystem feels a little off-putting if they’ve unfairly hounded one of the best contributors out of the network.
Ophelia Benson says
July 28, 2015 at 5:09 pm
So, the pharynugal hoard has learned some tricks from ElevatorGate and the various pitizens of the slyme pit. Nice to know. Nice to know. Who knew that I had to had my FB page from those that I considered allies lest I be screen shot and captured.
paraphrasing Rebecca Watson said it best.
Fuck the Skeptic movement.
Fuck the Atheist Movement.
time to say, Fuck this bullshit?
Right now, I feel like the moment at ElevatorGate, in fact. I followed both Rebecca and ERV. I read what ERV posted about Rebecca and it just did not jive with what I read on Skepchick. ERV never posted “this video” but certainty railed against it. I found the offending video, and guess what, it was nothing of the apocalypse ERV said it was.
This is turning out, in my opinion, another defining moment. Have you used words that may not be near perfect? Sure. TERF? Bull-fucking-shit. Bullshit. You know that when those commenters that you have read and enjoyed their thoughts start stalking, creeping, and screen capturing, I know which side I will run away from.
And how has PZ addressed this? You think he could help a bit, but he has been silent in the background. The issue is that there has been a lot in the backchannel and we, the FTB supporters, are only hearing peripheral noise without substance.
Ophelia a TERF? Fuck you all….fuck you. And you can screen capture me on that……
Donnie @ 43, re: PZ
PZ explicitly and repeated stated his full support for Ophelia and refuted the TERFness claims, ended the two “community” threads on Pharyngula, and announced intended moderation changes to curb the cliquishness and unthinking attack mode of many of his regular commenters. I have no idea if there’s anything happening in the backchannel or other behind-the-scenes avenues that cast those actions as hypocritical, but for what’s publicly visible he has been addressing this and has been anything but silent.
Hmmm. Have men decided that they need to take over the feminist movement to show women how to do it the right way?
That was snark.
I hope.
Hey, maybe we can change the narrative… I just learned via one of the people behind the labeling of Ophelia as a TERF that this blog has long been an outlet for Ophelia’s rabid Islamophobia.
Deep thinkers, we’re dealing with here.
Add me to the FB list of evildoers, for being sickened by this clusterfuck. Ophelia, I’ve lurked and occasionally (though not recently) commented. I’ve donated, sometimes in specific retaliation to slympit bullshit, and I have often disagreed with you. Some of your remarks re trans folk have made me uncomfortable, including the blackface quote (although the wayback machine actually mollified me somewhat). But then again, I have said uncomfortable, awkward, probably bigoted things about trans folk…and probablly every other marginalized group, my own included. This life thing, for me, has been one long learning process, and I fuck up in ways I personally find alarming and harming all too often. I guess that’s my way of saying that I believe mistakes were made.
However, and despite your infamous curmudgeonly refusal to be cornered (I’m like that too), you have made unequivocal comments in support of transgender self-identity, preferred pronouns, and even that one word answer that so many people feel the need to force out of you, to the father of the transgender son (not going to look it up unless coerced; there’s just so much to wade through). To me, that is the crux. In the past several years I’ve seen bloggers and commentators in the atheist/skeptical community pressed to reveal their true feelings after some questionable comment or other, and once those people have revealed their positions, they have been taken at their word. Except for you.
Not to mention that all this crap about sneaky TERFs does not jive with my experience of them,which is probably limited, I’ll admit. About the only way I’ve ever seen a TERF sneak up on anyone is when they are quoted saying something reasonable about something other than LGBT issues. TERFs themselves seem to be particularly loud and proud about their odious beliefs regarding transgender people.
Sorry, I’m rambling because this just makes me ill. I actually think it’s probably a good idea that you’re leaving, so long as it doesn’t silence you, which is no worry of mine. Mostly, I feel that way because of the reaction of a couple of your fellow bloggers, as well as some of the commentators. Sometimes it’s just better to separate from environments you find toxic. I’ll keep reading Pharyngula and I’ll follow you.
Ophelia,
I’m so sorry you’re being attacked like this. You don’t deserve it. One almost gets the feeling that the crowd out there has become bored with their usual targets and has been waiting breathlessly for someone, anyone new.
I have started and erased so many comments on so many posts. Let it slide, stayed silent because FtB has become as unsafe as the rest of the web. That’s heartbreaking.
I’ve always loved your writing and I apologize for not speaking up sooner.
#45
‘Author’ beat you to that point a few years back: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/07/27/girls/
Replace feminism terms with transphobia equivalents and away we go.
So, I’ve been hesitating to post this here but that linked article by Hornbeck, is it rank with misogyny, homophobia and objectification or is it just me? He says, and I do quote:
So, the idea that he’s promoting here is that some all-women spaces were essentially set up by lesbians looking for a piece without the penis competition in the room. And, the resistance to allowing men (not trans women, but men) was because the lesbians in question didn’t want to share the pussy they’d captured with their PUA-worthy plan.
Holy fuck. Let’s unpack that little nugget of misogyny, homophobia and female objectification for a minute, shall we? Let’s see, lesbians are the ersatz male, looking to poach pussy that was meant for men (as all pussy is, of course). Women who are looking for a space safe from sexual objectification are easy prey for the wily lesbians. Stupid women, safe places are for men. And the protest to having men invade these all-female spaces is because lesbians know that they can’t compete with the penis. Or, worse, because lesbians didn’t find them attractive – because, of course, only attractive women need apply. Women’s only spaces are a lot like cheerleading in that regard.
I mean. What the hell is that? Does anyone else think that Hornbeck got his history of TERFs from a porn called “College Bi-Sluts: Women’s STUDies?
Is it just me? Because if I’m the only one reading it that way, then please edit this post away, Ophelia. But it reads as pretty damn creepy to me.
Donnie @ 43 – actually there’s been very little in the back channel. Just one brief discussion. It was enough to make me decide to get out, but it wasn’t huge.
Holms @ 49 – funny you should mention it. I’ve been chatting to Author the past couple of days. He’s not a fan of what’s been happening.
@sambarge, 50
Wow… I actually hadn’t looked at that link. Firstly, I didn’t realise he was linking to his own article, apparently to support the claim that the glib summary of the article that he’s linking to support his claim that the glib summary is an accurate description of the issue is an accurate description of the issue, which is… a little bit weird. Secondly… yeah there’s a pretty strong “TERFdom is about lesbian sexual tastes” message coming through there, which is also questionable. And holy crap, that quote of Natalie Reed’s article makes it sound like what’s being argued is that simply not being attracted to someone who’s trans is transphobic, when the article itself makes a point of stating that this isn’t the case:
I get that he’s making a point with that post, but surely the context provided by that clarification is important and should’ve been included, if only to avoid lending credence to the ludicrous argument that trans women are claiming that not being attracted to someone is transphobic? Especially when he’s arguing that the whole trans exclusionary thing is based on lesbian squick reactions?
Even assuming the very best of intentions, and a total lack of any anti-lesbian sentiment, that post’s just fanning the flames of the misrepresentation that Reed makes clear is a major cause of TERF arguments relating to sexuality. Why is he proud enough of that article to make a point of linking to it?
Linking to it and doubling down in the new article. I don’t know. He has a lot of support in the article from people who are going to town condemning Ophelia though. Weird.
New article?
Sorry for being unclear. “New article” = the article you posted here. That article is problematic enough but in it he links to an older article that is worse.