What is the divorce status? It’s in abeyance for now, because I was very strongly urged to make it so.
But I still very much want to leave. I’m going to set up a Patreon account, and if I get a few subscribers, that will help make it possible. (Imagine B&W with no ads again!) I want to leave because several network colleagues have ostentatiously attacked me, not simply as someone they disagree with, but as a bad harmful dangerous person. They consider me a taint, a pollution, a toxin, and that is obviously very bad for a network of this kind. I don’t want to blog on a network where a small but vocal group of fellow bloggers think I’m a contaminant.
We don’t have a rule against a group of bloggers ganging up to ostracize and demonize one blogger. I thought (without noticing I thought it until recently) we did have a tacit rule of that kind, but I’ve learned that we don’t. We don’t have a rule, but what we do have is reality. The reality is that if a group singles out one blogger and goes after her for thought-crime and deviationism, that blogger is going to leave.
What do I mean, thought-crime and deviationism?
This for example from a comment by Jason on his post attacking me:
I think she said particularly impolitic things in particularly impolitic ways, regurgitated damaging arguments handed to her by TERFs that rightly got peoples’ hackles up, and I think she personally does not understand that at least some of the vitriol thrown her way is because some of those positions she’s taken are, actually, expressly damaging to trans folk. And the way she finally acquiesced to saying yes was so loaded with “but but gender is weird” — as though anyone was arguing gender WASN’T — is further damaging and undercuts her yes in a way that looks like a YES-BUT, which always reads as a NOT REALLY. And I am aware that she keeps saying over and over that she’s answered “yes”, but she’s doing so much lashing out at the genuine, nuanced criticism, and so much cozying up to the TERFs that everyone ELSE recognizes as having it out for trans folk, that it is perfectly reasonable for trans folk to want to steer clear even where people who are not trans might want to continue to engage.
To modify my first sentence though, I think my like and trust for Ophelia Benson is eroding the more she refuses to acknowledge that she might have done wrong and that anyone is at all legitimately hurt here. And every clarification — even if a step in the right direction — is loaded with paranoia about snakes in the grass and poisoners and witch-hunters who just want to attack her, that no amount of nuance in the argument is going to get through to her.
That’s not how colleagues should talk about each other in public – not in any organization where I want to work, at least. The main reason I wanted to join Freethought blogs when it was first set up was because it appeared to be a great group of people. I loved working solo but then once the network was created, I didn’t want to be left out of it. I thought it would be fun to have colleagues, and it was. It’s not fun any more, now that a few of them have lined up to talk about me the way Jason did there. If it’s not fun any more, why on earth would I stay? I could decide to stay for the good of the network, but since it’s the network that’s portraying me as a contaminant, I’m not motivated to do that. I’m getting all the shit part of having colleagues, and none of the good part.
I would appreciate if you include the rest of the comment. You only left out two short lines at the beginning:
I do firmly think that I am being absolutely fair and trying to get across the legitimate grievances without any of the acrimony. If you think that is not the case, that I am enforcing a conformity of thought, and that my presence on this network is preventing you from staying, then I will leave.
Honestly, Jason, I decided to leave those lines out because they make you look so damn silly when you go on to perform their opposite.
I’m really sorry that people are choosing to treat you like this.
I ended up writing a super-long thing about the community tearing itself apart, and why that’s a problem for folks like me (who could seriously benefit from the tools within skepticism), but instead of cluttering up your space, I’ll just go with telling you that I’ll continue to read your work.
I’m quite removed from the day-to-day affairs on FtB by now. I knew this network was going to be a thing when it was still a tub of yogurt on Ed and PZ’s shelves, and I couldn’t wait for when it finally went live.
So what I’m thinking here is that the ball should be in Ed and PZ’s court to say if they want and support this grotesque McCarthyism that Jason and some fringe commenters have been engaging in.
I’d rather see FtB rebooted with a core group including you Ophelia, because I think that you represent the core FtB values, why some bloggers might want to review their commitment, and maybe move on.
Random non-regular commenter weighing in.
I’ve been reading Butterflies & Wheels on and off since before it came to FtB and I have to say: the assertion that Ophelia Benson, of all people, would “[regurgitate] damaging arguments handed to her by TERFs” is the most breathtakingly ignorant statement I’ve seen in a while, on a par with the exchange that gave this blog its title in the first place.
I don’t think you’re a bad harmful evil person. I don’t think you’re engaging in thought crime. I think you’re hurt, and feel cornered, and want to blame everyone for all the evil befalling you; as though every person criticizing specific behaviours has it out for you. I understand that; I empathize. But I’m telling you — I’m not attacking. This isn’t an attack. I don’t want us to have bad blood. I wish you could see what I’m saying for what it is.
Cat Mara @ 5 – thank you. Yes, that “regurgitates” made me want to punch a wall. Right, that’s what I do, I see stuff and then I regurgitate it, kind of like a snipping tool.
I wouldn’t stay at a place where colleagues openly talked about me like that. It’s unacceptable for an IRL work atmosphere, and all the more unacceptable given that your work atmosphere encompasses social media. I read that comment as saying that “at least some of the vitriol” thrown your way — which includes people elsewhere blaming you for violence — is basically understandable or excusable. That will surely encourage further vitriol.
Jason @ 6, I don’t care what you think, I care what you’re saying – and what you’re encouraging people to say on your thread.
For instance your anger that I “JUST. WON’T. BACK. DOWN.”
Might be just me, but I feel that comment was seriously out of line, passive-aggressive BS at its finest. For shame.
I’m sorry that I said “regurgitate.” You literally asked your gender-critical group, full of people who are known TERFs (e.g. Hungerford, who started the group, and petitioned the UN to strip trans rights from human rights declarations) for help countering the argument “are trans women actually women”, liked the comment saying “if they needed the qualifier obviously there’s something there”, then repeated (not “regurgitated”) that exact argument on your post saying “yes I believe trans women”. That’s my core grievance — your core grievance with me is that I a) looked at the likes on that comment, and b) do not believe trans folk are particularly irrational for seeing this as odious behaviour, and c) I’m willing to say that in public even though that hurts you.
I’m sorry that that hurts you. I’m sorry that I will not let this go, even if we’re cohabitating the same space. I’m sorry that other commenters think this is a grievous abrogation of freethought. And I think that means that my presence is the toxic element and I do need to leave.
@jason. Of course you’re attacking Ophelia. As you continue, you merely give your reasons for doing so. How dare she speak to people you disapprove of!
In any case, I have some close at hand experience with trans* people. Not least a close relative. Yes or no applies to almost no question that can be asked about gender, or about their experiences or preferences. Insofar as one person would answer one way, another will answer another. Apparently news to you, but they’re people, not monolith. People’s preferences and self perceptions differ.
Obviously my subscription money will go to your Patreon account when you have it up.
This is just the latest example of Ophelia’s opponents in this matter arguing in bad faith:
Compare the question actually asked on that gender-critical group page: “how could it be unequivocal or uncontentious or not in need of nuance?” to Jason’s characterization: “You literally asked your gender-critical group… FOR HELP COUNTERING the argument ‘are trans women actually women’…” That is neither literally correct nor “literally” correct.
The problem is not even that Jason is willing to say this shit in public and “that hurts you.” The problem is that it’s a lie.
I scrolled and scrolled and scrolled to find that post in the Gender Critical group and finally found it, and…god damn is that ever a mischaracterization, Jason.
Here is my post there in its entirety:
Simultaneity strikes again, Jennifer. (Thank you.)
Here’s the link in case anyone wants to check or read the comments or both. It’s a public group (a fact I’d forgotten when I posted).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/genderdiscusssion/permalink/604763966294062/
I will be contributing to the B&W Pratreon account as well.
And Jason, your attempt to communicate “legitimate grievances” has completely failed. Ophelia has been very clear about the questions that she has posed recently. I’ve been reading her blog for 10 plus years. In my opinion, Ophelia is and has always been a great supporter of the LGBTQ community.
B&W and OB are major assets to FTB, as far as I am concerned.
I had been on the point of subscribing to ditch the ads and support the whole FTB yoghurt pot. But, frankly, if a small Patreon would get me more brain foodz at a cheaper price, then I’d seriously consider that as a better spending of my scarce money.
Jason Thibeault
Can you not see how laughable this claim is given what you say in #11? You are saying that believing the phrase “if they needed the qualifier obviously there’s something there” is worthy of condemnation. Your post says that you find that belief “particularly repulsive.” Stop gas lighting and own the fact that you’re attacking her for the things she liked on facebook. Own the fact that you have a problem with the people she talks with. Own the fact that you have a problem with what you think is going on in her head.
Jason, here’s a trans person telling you that your characterisation of what Ophelia said is so wrong that it amounts to a lie.
If other trans people are reacting based on the lies about Ophelia then I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am disappointed if they did so without making any attempt to find out what she actually did and said.
When you set up your Patreon, I’ll switch my subscription to that. If you stay here, I’ll keep reading B&W here. If you decide to go indy again, I’ll read B&W wherever it is.
Trans identity is a separate and distinct axis from gender. “Trans” does not modify “woman”, because we could as easily be talking about trans neutrois, trans agender, trans man, etc. You can talk about trans folk without discussing gender and still have a set of problems and disadvantages unique to them. The fact that your argument says “how could it be unequivocal or not in need of nuance with the word trans there” is part of the problem. The fact that the rest of your argument goes that not all trans folk would consider themselves women is beside the point. If someone asks “do you believe trans women are actually women” they are asking if you think “trans” modifies “woman” in some way that “white” might not modify “woman”.
This is the whole argument, soup to nuts. That’s what you just won’t back down on, despite once-friends and once-colleagues trying to tell you is harmful, and that’s what trans folk (from what I’ve seen) are upset about, notwithstanding everything else they might have gone back to dredge up in order to overreach and call you a TERF.
Saying I’m lying about any of this is a gross misrepresentation — if I missed the nuance of “do you believe”, that’s not a lie, it doesn’t actually modify my argument, and it’s not actually salient to the argument that people are trying to have with you in this comment’s paragraph one which you somehow keep evading by painting the people trying to express it as liars and poisoners and attackers.
And the interactions on that thread, after the original post proper, are part of the substance of why trans folk feel you were looking to TERFs to buttress your counterarguments. Because some of the arguments — from TERFs — were quite gross.
Jason, through this whole thing you’ve been a cis man intervening in a fight between two groups that are oppressed by cis men. The same would be true if you took the diametrically opposed position. It’s obnoxious and harmful to both groups. Not to mention to cis men of conscience.
Jesus christ, Jason. It was one sentence in one post on Facebook. I don’t feel a need to “back down” from it because it wasn’t a Statement in the first place. It was one sentence.
The fact that you’re cross-examining such minute details this way is part of what causes me to see it as bizarre and creepy and wholly inappropriate among colleagues. I put something badly in one sentence. SO WHAT?
Why isn’t there a rule that co-operatively bullying fellow bloggers is a no go? Shouldn’t a conversation on that be had?
So what?! So that’s the problem! That that sentence you “put badly” is a large part of the problem trans folk appear to have with you! If you think it’s bizarre and creepy to tell you WHY specific actions have raised certain folks’ hackles, then so be it. I’m bizarre and creepy for telling you why people are upset.
If a single trans person tells me to back down on this, I will, Chris. But to have another cis man tell me I’m doing it wrong when I am underscoring the arguments I’ve seen from trans folk, doing so because I’m placed closely enough that they might get through to Ophelia, that strikes me as blinkered. If you think I’m attacking, obnoxious, harmful to trans folk, that’s certainly not my intent and if anyone better placed within the group that’s upset is willing to tell me to stop, I’ll stop advocating for them. I never want to talk over anyone who otherwise has a marginalized voice.
Oh, yes – way to “get through” to me – demonize me on your blog and welcome commenters to do the same. Yes, you’re “placed closely enough” to damage me and drive me off the network, that’s what you’re “placed closely enough” to do.
God of all the self-important self-flattering shit I’ve ever seen…
Knight @ 25 – I don’t know; I think there should be. As I said in the post, I always assumed there was, without directly thinking about it.
I tried to have the conversation about it and was told no.
” I never want to talk over anyone who otherwise has a marginalized voice.” LOL!
> “I’m going to set up a Patreon account”
I’ll be signing up PDQ. I was reading and appreciating your work before FTB existed, and expect to continue doing so once FTB is gone.
(Which may be sooner than expected, if the network becomes dominated by the form of argument on display in this thread, where your “critics” appear to be proceeding by making things up.)
Oh come now, Jennifer, women aren’t marginalized compared to men any more. That’s all over! Now, if you want to talk about the problems of women in the Muslim world –
Oh wait…
So, where would you move your operation if you are leaving somewhat freethought blogs?
Jason Thibeault @ 22:
Yes, but is not the issue more with the “woman” than the “trans”? I believe that Ophelia was asked a “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” type of question and she rightly refused to answer it. That many of her fellow bloggers here have chosen to speak out against her instead of defending her refusal to engage in argument-by-soundbite, and upholding her right to engage in debate on her own terms, is disappointing.
Ophelia Benson wrote:
.
I know that you think that his post was attacking you. And maybe it was. But… it was a direct response to a post of your own in which you said he was being “exactly like the slimers”…
.
From a certain point of view, his post attacking you could be seen as his post defending himself against your attack…
Nothing will work, anon.
No, I didn’t say he was. I said they were – a generalized plural, which assumed people had been reading previous posts on the subject. I illustrated with four tweets of his, but they included someone else who’s been creepily monitoring my social media trivia and publicly ranting about it. Yes clearly I included Jason in the “they” and used his (fucking creepy) tweets as the example, but no I did not say he alone was doing it.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2015/07/comment-liking-crime/
anon, yes, I summarily deleted your first comment, because it was flippant and jokey and I don’t particularly want flippant jokey comments on this thread.
And I don’t want you making this about you, either, so your 35 and 36 are going too.
I’m reminded of the tearful ‘confession’ scene in The Killing Fields. ‘Just confess to anything we ask you to. Accept the label of capitalist running-dog, or whatever else we find convenient.’ The false embrace of the compliant, followed by their immediate disappearance…
Every Wingnut cliché about PC-dom is chllingly confirmed.
It WOULD be nice to actually see the posts without scrolling around or manually closing half a dozen sleazy ad-banners.
*I’m* the one that’s blinkered here. Yeah. Because I’m lecturing women about how to feminist.
Scratch an ally, get a misogynist.
Sorry.
.
Was it just one comment of mine that was deleted? I made (or tried to make) one obnoxious comment about nuance in response to what you said @2 and another obnoxious comment in response to what Jason said @22 about “Trans identity” being “a separate and distinct axis from gender.”
.
As I suggested @35, my hope was to make you forget your differences and get mad at me instead.
.
The more I think about it… that was probably a bad plan.
I haven’t actually been able to stomach any of my regular FtB blogs (Jasons’s was one I quite enjoyed) except B&W and Pharyngula. I don’t even look at the Pharyngula comments anymore at all. Haven’t been able to check out Skepchick since that piece by Olivia and the 18 comments only, when I know they’re holding back comments supporting Ophelia. Will behaved embarrassingly, and I’d always respected his mind and what I perceived as a sense of fairness and tolerance in comments.
Jason seems to feel he is the voice of all trans folk everywhere. Maybe he should have a discussion with the writer of that beautiful Facebook post you just published, Ophelia. I’ve seen several trans commentators speak out in support of Ophelia. Shouldn’t they be listened to as well, Jason and Oolon?
There was a great comment this week along the lines of “this has all happened before, and will again,” that has made me think about the fascinating psychological aspects of this clusterfuck. But I’ll have to save such contemplations for a more removed date. For now, I’m mostly just ill with it all.
Here’s something I said on Facebook the other day that seems apropos:
20 years ago I was living in downtown Oakland, in a neighborhood that was about half African-American and half Asian. There was tension between the two groups. I belonged to neither of those two groups. My wife (at the time) is Chinese-American, and I got angry when some of the racial tension landed on her. I was fiercely allied to her. I wanted to help her by intervening in some way. And yet as a white person, not only did I have no place taking a stand in any direction, there was nothing I could have said or done that wouldn’t have made things worse aside from, if someone asked me directly, expressing a wish that everyone involved would listen to each other more carefully and patiently. And no one asked.
That situation has been coming to mind a lot lately.
Jason, if you feel that you are right in the things your written and allowed to be said about Ophelia on your blog, I see no reason for you to offer your resignation from FtB. I mean, have the courage of your convictions. Also:
Really? Because I don’t think there is a single voice that speaks for trans people or the trans experience. I also doubt that there is uniformity of opinion in the trans community – or even that all trans people consider themselves as belonging to that community. Again, you should have the courage of your convictions. If you believe that Ophelia is detrimental to trans people, once voice shouldn’t sway your opinion. That’s tantamount to “my gay/black/woman friend is totes cool with it.” Would that alter your position on homophobia, racism or sexism? Hopefully not.
I’ve been watching this interaction unfold for quite a while at FTB. I’ve not interjected my 2¢ here because I’ve long grown tired of the battle. I went through several variations of this stuff at feminist blogs in the aughts (Feministe, Alas, A Blog, Feministing, and many others). It eventually settled down into a much better place, but I’m battle weary.
I will say this much. As a trans woman, I deeply appreciate cis people coming to bat for me. We can’t carry this battle on our own. There are far more cis people with flawed understandings of our lives, perspectives, and needs than there are trans people. Jason, you specifically have addressed these needs and concerns and I thank you.
If you’ll notice, a lot of trans voices have dropped out of Ophelia Benson’s comment threads. That’s telling.
One final thing. I’m a woman. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you have to trow out “ontological” qualifiers in your “yes” answer to our existence, that’s telling, too.
Good day.
Mmm-hmm. So your saying “THEY are like slimers” and using four tweets of MINE to illustrate how bad THEY (ostensibly including me) are, doesn’t actually mean you think I am too.
Never mind that up until that moment, I stayed the hell out of it because I hoped that the trans folk who were upset with you would be able to get the actual arguments through to you themselves.
Never mind that I only stepped in because I hoped that my being once considered a colleague might mean you’d recognize my actions as honest — as explaining why people were evidently upset.
Never mind that I didn’t even do it to you directly, I did it to someone who was going overboard saying that the arguments were that you were a TERF because thoughtcrime because associations. I was, in effect, defending you against overreach, and explaining exactly what I thought people had problems with.
Never mind that I did not point the conversation to you out of respect for the fact that you were getting a lot of hell from a lot of dishonest interlocutors stirring the pot, and didn’t want to add to that, and that you sought that conversation out and used it to illustrate how EVIL “THEY” ARE, and now you’re claiming it wasn’t about me, and that my post defending myself (and simultaneously restating the arguments I saw that trans folk were making) was actually an attack on you.
I honestly thought you might see my name and not immediately think “dishonest interlocutor”, “troll” or “slimer”. I honestly thought that, placed as I was as a colleague, that you could take what I was saying at face value. But you whipped around on me and bit, as though you were cornered. And all your commenters think I’m evil too, including a number I once counted as friends. I fucking hate every aspect of this but I don’t see how we can ever reconcile it. That’s why I’m leaving, so everyone can go back to peace and harmony without me, the dishonest attacking slimepitter.
noxiousnan @ 42
You do? They are?
Wow.
Seriously. That was priceless.
Just a side note: Two terms that fill me with peevishness at the moment are “folks” (and the even worse “folk”) and “self-care.” The first almost always has a feel of condescension about it when used to describe a group that doesn’t include you. The second – a faddish bit of therapy-speak imported into political life – I’ve seen used in this episode, more than once, in the most disingenuous way imaginable: “I’ve been reading Ophelia’s responses and joining a collective campaign of public denunciation and distancing, which hasn’t been good for my self-care.” “I hear you. I know this can be painful. Be sure to practice good self-care.”
Jason
Well, then I’m sorry. Really.
But keep in mind that colleagues had already been trashing me – Alex’s loathsome post, and Stephanie’s Facebook post. Other people I thought were friends were trashing me by then, including VitaBrevi whom you were responding to in those tweets. I had very little reason not to take your tweets at face value.
Jason, #22:
Urgh. Basic grammar fail. Observe: “‘Red’ does not modify ‘firetruck’, because we could just as easily be talking about red flowers, red houses, red jackets, etc.” Here “red” is an adjective, and it modifies the following noun, telling us something about the kind of flower, house, jacket, etc.: namely, a red one. In precisely the same way, “trans” here is an adjective that modifies the noun phrase that follows. A “trans” woman is a woman who is transgender, as opposed to a “cis” woman who is cisgender, a “bi” woman who is bisexual, a “het” woman who is heterosexual, a “white” woman who is (considered) white, etc.
I think by “does not modify” you are trying to say, “does not make less so.” That’s true. A red house is a house just as much as a blue house is. A white woman is a woman just as much as a black woman is. A big elephant is just as much an elephant as a small elephant is. Adjectives modify, by narrowing to a subset. The key observation being that a member of a subset is clearly a member of the superset.
…but that’s not what you said. What you said is grammatically, logically, and in all other ways, not true.
This is all unseemly as fuck, obviously, but the demonization of me on the network has been unseemly as fuck too, so at this point…the hell with it.
But also…honestly, Jason, you thought I wouldn’t see those tweets as more attacking? When you say “the entire vector here [whatever that means] is damaging to all of us”? You thought that would persuade me of something – seeing you say publicly that something I’m doing is “damaging to all of us”?
That is fucking ridiculous.
Damaging to trans folk, to Freethought Blogs, to you, to discourse in general. You don’t think the vector (of discussion — the pattern it’s taken, the paths down which people have let it meander) has been damaging as hell to all of us?
I just said it has, in the post you’re commenting on.
But where we differ is that I don’t think I’m the one who did the damaging.
Correction. To trans people in general? No, of course I don’t. Jesus Christ, I have a small blog – biggish in its own niche, but tiny relative to blogs in general. No I don’t think any of this is damaging to trans people in general. I think that claim is more of this stupid scare-mongering that you and Alex and the rest of the gang have been doing.
Masked Avenger @50:
“Does not modify” does mean “does not make less so”. The thing is, trans-ness and woman-ness are both descriptives, adjectives of “person”. Saying “trans woman” describes the overlap of two adjectives in a Venn diagram, and the fact that the descriptive also includes “trans” does not pull that person out of the “woman” part of the diagram. When trans folk (yes, I say folk instead of people, get over it SC) say “do you believe trans women are women” they are literally asking if you think the one adjective modifies or overrides the other.
John Morales’ only proffered example of an adjective that might do that was “fake”, for instance. Trans women are clearly concerned that you think “trans” means something like “fake”.
And you ignored my question. Did you really think I wouldn’t see those tweets as more attacking?
In some senses/contexts, it is (as I discuss at the end of this post). In general, no, it fundamentally is not. (And it was the general context, talking explicitly about gender, in which these conversations were occurring.)
To the specific trans people who know about this fight, all of whom I’ve seen abjure the whole damn thing? Yeah, it’s been damaging to them. To them in general? No, maybe you don’t have the reach of a Dawkins. You have between ten and a hundred times my traffic on a given day though, and that means you have some reach. Certainly more than me. Certainly enough that you can point them at me and say “look at the slimer” and it does to me more than nothing.
Yes, I really thought you might see those tweets as not attacking. Maybe I didn’t realize just exactly how impossible it is to fix an ongoing problem with someone who’s clearly in full siege mentality mode. I should have taken lessons from your fights with Dillahunty, Shermer and Dawkins.
And beyond all that, you’ve argued eloquently about the damage of microaggressions. If you think your blog is small enough to not have any impact on trans folk in general when they are the ones telling you it does, I’d think that itself would also get through to you.
Jason @56:
I think I’m starting to see the source of my disagreement with you. I thought it might have to do with different definitions of “woman” or “trans” or “sex”… but maybe it’s a disagreement about the meaning of the word “modify”.
In other contexts, I often think “modify” means “improvements”. Like… when Han Solo describes the Millennium Falcon and says “I’ve made a lot of special modifications myself…”
I’ve been really grateful to see cis allies like Jason speaking up, especially since you have apparently cozied up to people who are dangerous, and have shown ample willingness to dox trans people (like myself).
That you’ve taken the most even-handed criticisms and quotations of the things you have said, and turned this into an elaborate conspiracy based on hating you is honestly just sort of embarrassing and sad. This siege mentality and fear-biting and digging in deeper just shows a total abdication of any willingness t think at all on the subjects, and not a single fuck given about the many people, myself included, who liked and repsected you and who you’ve hurt. I hope wherever you go, you’re happier.
anon – could you just stop? You’re not contributing anything and I don’t want derails on this thread.
ok.
Ophelia @47 – Yes, it’s still 18 comments as of now, and yesterday Sambarge (comment 39 on It’s not enough to…post) was blocked from commenting there.
@Jason
You and Ophelia are both bloggers I enjoy reading, which doesn’t mean I always agree with either of you. It sickens me that two people I respect, and whose writing I value have got into such a fight.
If you reread your post I think you’ll find a lot worse in it: “ostensibly inadvertently” (do you really believe Ophelia was deliberately baiting trans people?), “tone-deaf commentary”, “misgendered a trans person who claims to have given their preferred pronouns” (why mention this if you don’t mean to imply it was deliberate?).
Yes, I understand you were reacting to Ophelia’s somewhat harsh reaction to your criticism of her “liking” a comment somewhere (I found that a bit creepy / stalkerish myself). And we all sometimes say or write things we don’t mean quite the way they come out. But if this goes for you, it also goes for Ophelia, right?
So perhaps analysing someone’s every word for the past decade, trying to find things that can be interpreted in a negative way, and then hashing it out in public is not the best way to settle a difference of opinion?
SJ circles really need to learn that intelligent and well-meaning people can reasonably disagree on some points. This doesn’t have mean either of you has to leave (I hope you both stay.)
Maybe an offline, or at any rate non-public exchange would be an option? Maybe involving someone who actually wants you to reconcile?
.
As for the ongoing insistence that Ophelia back down – hey, I’m only an occasional reader here, but take my word for it: bullying is not going to get you anywhere with her. (@Ophelia: I don’t mean to be offensive. It’s actually a quality I greatly respect.)
As for “siege”, “hostage” etc.: there’s a fight going on now, you mention another that “went on for a month”, earlier this year Ophelia was attacked here on FTB as a racist (for supporting an anti-racist organisation’s views) – do you see the pattern here? Is it maybe a good reason to cut Ophelia some slack, and back down yourself?
This is how you treat people you like and trust? Honestly, it’s like there’s a group of social-justice advocates who’ve decided that the best and only way to respond to comments or actions you dislike in every case, even when it comes to trusted colleagues and friends, is to jump immediately into public denunciation and distancing mode. It’s counterproductive, unkind, irresponsible, and – in your case – obnoxious: you’re stepping in to lecture a woman on questions of “womanhood.”
@43 – Chris Clarke
What would it take to push you over the edge? If it had been your kids?? No really, not to hijack the thread but the situation you’re describing is horrifying. Your sense of non-membership and inability to participated in a community that includes the people closest to you IS the problem. This is not a good argument for why Jason should shut up. If there’s a reason why he should shut up, it’s because he’s already said it all at least once.
Jason Thibault @22:
In other words: when Jason and his supporters say that Ophelia has said something wrong and hurtful, that is the TRUTH, and Ophelia’s refusal to accept and confess is just being perverse and obstinate, because she should. When Ophelia and her supporters tell Jason that he’s said something wrong about and hurtful to her, well, they’re just plain WRONG and Jason need not reconsider his position.
Even shorter version: it is an act of bad faith to rely on your own judgment instead of Jason’s.
I HAVE already said it all at least once, and I SHOULD shut up, but, you know, here I am. Featured here on the front page of this blog that’s way bigger than mine, again painted as an attacker.
It wasn’t a *sense* of non-membership.
Ok – HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr @ 63 – I’m glad to see you, because I have some questions and clarifications for you.
You’re the one who has been claiming I deliberately misgendered you, right? And you told me in a comment here that I knew what your preferred pronouns were. I’ve seen you saying in other places – like some of the hostile blogs on this network – that we had been Facebook friends (and thus I knew all about you).
I want to clear that up. I did not deliberately misgender you. It was accidental. And I did not know what your preferred pronouns were; I didn’t know anything about you. A lot of people comment here; I know something about some of them, and nothing about others. I still don’t know anything about you. Facebook friendship does not equal detailed knowledge of someone.
I apologize for accidentally using the wrong pronoun for you.
I didn’t intentionally dox you, either. I don’t know what that’s about. Maybe I thought a name was public when it was only Facebook-friends public? Was that it? Again it wasn’t intentional.Jason @60, you do have a tendency to diagnose, don’t you?
I believe HappiestSadist is referring to two posts on your blog where you screencapped people who were privately upset at you, one of whom had the post settings “friends only”. That puts them in the crosshairs for some very terrible folks, especially TERFs like Cathy Brennan who regularly goes the whole nine yards in doxing, including dead names and social media contacts, on one of her “name the problem” sites.
Ophelia @ 73,
I may be misreading, but I think that the “willing to dox” @63 was a reference to the people to whom you have allegedly “cozied up,” rather than something you are accused to doing yourself.
Jason @ 71 – so you’re saying that because my blog is bigger than yours, therefore you can barf out any old shit about me and encourage other people to do the same, and I have to just take it?
I don’t agree.
I’m very concerned, for a number of reasons, about how porous the borders have become between blogs, where people often use pseudonyms, and social media where they use their “real” names. It creates a lot of potential for outing people and violating their privacy. In the past, people made agonizing decisions about revealing the identities of even those who had spent years targeting them for harassment and abuse. Now, people can reveal someone’s identity completely inadvertently, and can cause real harm.
I think it’s a good policy for everyone to be extremely careful when sharing anything from another medium, to assume as a default that it might contain private information, and to err on the side of caution.
Ok, I struck out the question about doxing.
As far as I know I posted only one screencap of something private. That was bad.
When you say two, is the other one Alex? Because that was a public post – a public post wishing a detailed gruesome punishment and death on me. I don’t apologize for that for a second. If it’s not Alex, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, Ophelia. I’m saying that being allowed to disagree has to go both ways for this network to have any viability. And I’m further saying that you can’t defend yourself as a tiny blog and thus your words have no impact on others, if I’m a much tinier blog and my words have impact on you.
SC – that’s true. It’s very easy to make mistakes. [makes note to be more vigilant]
Okay. If you could see me on facebook, you had access to my pronouns. That we were facebook friends, you’d have also seen them (I am not conflating being facebook friends with being actual friends). You’d been told, and had access to that information, and didn’t adjust anything. It’s not “detailed knowledge”, it’s “things you can see if you ever got notified that I made a comment on a post of yours”, or “looked at my info”.
I do appreciate the apology, and I do accept it.
The doxxing would be when you posted the screenshot from facebook to here, showing my face and name and linking it to my nym. I mean, you could have forgotten that I had posted here about my having a dangerous stalker, or on facebook about it, but still.
I used to have a great deal of respect for you, and I can tell that you’re in pain from all of this, and don’t seem to understand why. Unfortunately, I know that both I and other have made attempts to reach out to you and offer explanations and more information and context, but you either flatly refused, or took them as attacks. You also deleted a lot of comments, and entire posts, and then claimed none of them ever happened, which, really? To be honest, I’m pretty sure your former fans who are trans probably are hurting more. I know I am. It’s not that you’re critical of the constructs of gender, lots of trans people are, and just as this was all starting, I was losing myself in some really interesting stuff by trans women of colour gender abolitionists, who have some amazing points. But you hurt a lot of people, some very deeply on a personal level, some as colleagues, some as fans who have trans people in their lives. I lashed out back, because I was hurt, and honestly thought you were above some of the reasoning I’ve seen lately.
I’m not talking about “disagreeing.” Jesus. You know who else does that? Sure you do.
You know who else painted all disagreement as harassment? Dawkins and Shermer and their defenders. It cuts both ways.
Sorry, I suppose they called it all “witch hunts” and “demands for purity” and “McCarthyism” and “feminazis”. Not really “harassment.”
HappiestSadist @ 82 –
No, really, it doesn’t mean that at all. I don’t know people’s pronouns on Facebook – I just assume them from names, and don’t know in the case of neutral names. I was assuming yours from your name, that’s all. I still don’t know directly from you. A friend of yours told me you prefer they / their.
For the rest – well some of your reaching out has been pretty bad-tempered, which is why I ended up unfriending you. I can be very bad-tempered myself.
What is your point, Jason? That it’s all been “disagreement” and none of it has been an ugly group demonization? Because if so, well that’s just one more disagreement we have.
Jason @46:
Jason @ 53, 56, 59, 60, 61, 71, 75, 80, 84, 85: not leaving
The unfriending is pretty reasonable, we were both not getting anywhere good by that point.
My pronouns are they/their, yes. And my name, well, I like it, it’s already been changed once when I was very young, and it’s not the main reason people misgender me most of the time anyway.
The reason that the screenshot was as upsetting to me as it was, was that it linked this nym to my actual self, when I know that I have talked about a lot of stuff like my assaults in detail and my being stalked, including on this blog.
Ophelia I hate dredging up ugliness but I think it’s only fair that you know what kind of accusations are made against you regarding doxxing. One of the accusations definitely stems from the instance you mention in #79. I have seen more than one person claim that your posting of that screen cap was an incitement to violence against the person whose gruesome public post you screen capped.
Jason @ 80 –
Oy.
I said my blog is too small to hurt trans people in general. I did not say it was too small to harm people on this blog network. Please tell me you can see the difference.
Ophelia, I have been following this clusterfuck quite closely over the last weeks in disbelieve and sometimes disgust. I am a total outsider to all of this and almos never comment on blogs so I will just say that I will pitch in to the Patreon should you decide to set one up. Even if (or maybe because) I am uncomfortable with some of your writing your blog adds a unique voice and perspective to my reading list and has made me think and reevaluate my position on more than a few occasions.
I have one question for Jason though, and hope this is not too much of a derailment (feel free to delete this comment if that is the case).
—
CONTENT NOTE: discussion of Hungerfords writing, also apologies if I mess up or use inappropriate wording in the following. I am not used to discussing fraught political topics in English which is not my native language.
—
Jason @ 11
Can you (or anyone else) provide a citation for this claim? I have seen this a lot recently but couldn’t find any source for that. I don’t doubt Hungerford is a TERF and I hate most of what I’ve seen of her writings while trying to verify this specific claim. The closest I can find is that she argues that laws wrt. public accommodations should use the “legal sex” of a person (which she grudgingly accepts as attainable by trans folk) instead of “gender identity”.
According to her “gender identity” has no usable legal definition and would open up those laws to abuse. She also states that she has “no objection to the application of ‘gender identity’ laws to sex-neutral contexts such as education, employment hiring and firing, and access to credit or housing.” [I can provide sources for this on request but they are easily discoverable through Google and I don’t know if direct links to her writings would be okay]
There is a lot to criticize here (especially, but not limited to her suggestion that gender reassignment surgery should be a prerequisite for changing ones legal sex), but “strip[ing] trans rights from human rights declarations” doesn’t seem like an accurate representation of her argument in the two letters of her I could find.
Really? You are equating the actions of Dawkins and Shermer with Ophelia’s? I just rolled my eyes so hard, I saw my brain.
Jennifer, well we’re in full ugliness mode on this thread, so don’t worry about it. [little wry joke there]
Yes I’ve seen people claiming that too – on “Jade Hawk”‘s public Facebook posts, for instance. It’s a ridiculous claim, since the post was public. I was asking if Jason bought into that ridiculous claim.
HappiestSadist @ 89
Well I’m very sorry about that. Is it still there? I’ll remove it if so. I can put you back in mod if you want to point it out privately.
@87: My point… as though I could make it any clearer… is that yes, there has been some dishonest interlocutors, and some people who are perhaps too quick to burn you out of their lives because they need to defend themselves from anti-trans sentiment generally, just like in any conversation about feminism in the skeptical community and all the sides-taking and too-quick-burning-out that happens around them. My point is that some people in amongst all this actually have real grist for their mills in discussing how your actions have hurt them directly. That there are legitimate grievances in amongst all the vitriol. I appreciate your apology to HappiestSadist too, because they’ve been one of the people I’ve been thinking of as people that have been hurt by this fight.
Yes, some people are out for blood. Yes, some chunk of those people are slimepitters stirring the pot, who actually have it out for you because they see you as vulnerable right now. Yes, the people who are out for blood might seem like attackers, even aggressive, even though they’re doing as much distancing as they can and not actually pointing that disagreement at you (like Alex, who did not direct it at you, and you had to either seek it out or have one of their friends send it to you).
But I’m seeing a large number of people — myself included — trying to pick up the points of genuine disagreement and talk about those, and getting treated as trolls, attackers, wrong-headed evildoers.
And I’m further seeing you lumping everyone together as “ugly group demonization”, where my talking about specific behaviours leads you to believe I think you’re a TERF or that I’m stalking you or that I’m part of some groupthink hatemob. And all of this reminds me of your fight with Shermer about “kind of a guy thing” and his immediate response was “feminazis!!!” So, at this point, I’m disappointed in how you’re reacting to the legitimate grievances (though I empathize with why — the under siege part of this does not escape me, I know you’re under attack by hateful and disingenuous assholes). I’m further disappointed that you can repeatedly characterize my actions in criticizing your behaviour as assaults on you as a person, or that I’m no better than the disingenuous assholes who just want you out.
I never once said I wanted you out. I don’t. I don’t want you to leave any more than I want to leave myself. I don’t want to be conflated with the attackers and haters, because I’m not.
And that’s why I’m here, in the comments of your post painting me as the reason you need to leave, defending myself against your attacks on me, because that disagreement — your disagreement with me — needs some dissent. If I can’t disagree with the implication that I’m some evil attacker, then I guess some thoughts are freer than others.
@88: I meant “leaving the network”. Since everyone seems content with the frame that I’m after Ophelia’s head, I’d rather put my own head on the chopping block.
Wrong. I said “for example” – therefore not the reason.
I was very clear in the post.
And for that very reason, there’s no point in your leaving. I’m the problem, you’re not. There are several who have trashed me, and only one of me. I’m the one who has to leave.
You deleted it, Ophelia, when some of your commenters suggested you should. I am still worried about possible fallout, though. I appreciate that you apologized.
That I can tell, only one blogger has come anything close to trashing you in my estimation. Not me, that I can tell. But I’m too close.
But you did paint me as an example of toxicity. So. Since you pointed to me specifically, here I am. I offered to leave to keep you around, because perhaps I actually have the best interests in the network at heart. And perhaps I’m willing to take a personal hit in order to resolve things, in a way that doesn’t leave every commenter loyal to you with the impression that I personally led the charge to drive you out.
Well, HappiestSadist, that was unquestionably crap of me.
I, on the other hand, don’t have the best interests of the network at heart. I’ve been intent on destroying it from the beginning.
And as for the one blogger claim – Alex did, Stephanie did on Facebook (so that doesn’t count as doing it on the network), Heather MacDonald did, you did. Heina and Dana just added to the pile-on for no apparent reason.
If I thought you didn’t have the best interests of the network at heart, I WOULD say you should leave. I’ve expressly said you shouldn’t. At least in part because I know your leaving hurts FtB more than my leaving does.
I still don’t know and don’t care about what the disagreement was. For some things I’ve seen, it’s even probable that I agree more with the majority of FtB than with Ophelia. Anyhow, I dont want to dig interminable dirty debates to find out. The questions that puzzle me will be settled through reading texts and talking to people. Where I never had any doubts is about the ethical wrongness of this persecution of Ophelia. Some months from now, what is discussed now will be almost forgotten. It was only a pretext. What will be remembered is that Ophelia Benson was a bad person. Well, she will survive this into the next phase, with different and more open organizations. FtB was extremely important for a time, but it is usual for this kind of outfit to crash and burn very fast.
I said it in another thread, and I’ll say it again here. This is some Glenn Beck style bullshit.
“I’m not saying she’s a TERF, but why’s she following TERFs on Twitter? I’m not saying she’s a TERF, but why won’t she answer the accusations of TERF-dom? I’m not saying she’s a TERF, but why’s she asking TERFs for advice? Ok, maybe she isn’t asking TERFs for advice, but surely you can see how people might think that? I’m not saying she’s a TERF, but but but but but…”
Frankly, at this point I can’t really accept that anyone demanding apologies from Ophelia, or accusing her, or trying to “help” her see the error of ways, is doing so in good faith.
And that goes for you too, Jason. You keep trying to paint a picture of poor, pitiful, helpful you being mistreated by an obstinate, ungrateful Ophelia. You say you’re “disappointed in how [Ophelia’s] reacting to the legitimate grievances” when your “legitimate grievances” include shit like this:
And this:
Oh, but woe is you, defending yourself from the big meanie Ophelia who, for some completely irrational reason, thinks that your accusations of her cozying up to TERFs and regurgitating TERF talking points is an attack. Why, you’re just having a friendly disagreement. You’re just trying to help, if only she’d let you. And if only she’d stop acting like a TERF. Not that she is one, of course, but surely we can see why some people might think that…
That post was toxic. It was bad, and you should feel bad. You don’t, and you won’t, but you should.
Stephanie wrote a post about some of the tactics used in your defense which were tactics we all expressly sneer at in service of defense of Dawkins or Shermer. The post was not about you specifically, nor about your learning about trans issues, nor about your handling disagreement personally about trans issues. That post — though it is undeniably right, that some people are defending you based on past acts and ignoring the problems people have with the present acts — was not an attack on you, and Stephanie expressly shut down attempts to make it about you. She — and I — lost friends over that post.
Heina wrote a post in support of her trans friends and readers, explaining her position on the question of “are trans women actually women”, while expressly stating that her post was not about you. It was about the arguments themselves. And you read it as a coded attack on you, and posted it on your blog, and consider her an attacker too.
Dana wrote a post with almost the identical thrust to Heina’s, including making it not about you.
Heather’s post was fueled by anger about the fight involving another cis woman and trans issues, but admitted to not even seeing the original posts that sparked it all.
I posted in direct response to being called a slimer on your blog with a screenshot of me and only me tweeting, without even mentioning my damned name.
And in each case, we’re talking about the issues of the question of “are trans women actually women” in such a way that you see any answer other than yours — that it’s more nuanced than yes or no — as a direct assault on you.
Same with Olivia, who as far as I know only knew there was a fight involving that specific phrase.
You’re taking all these disagreements as attacks on you. You’re parsing them to find a coded desire to attack you and a secret cabal of people drumming you out of the movement. I’m saying that’s not actually happening here. It’s people reacting individually to individual things.
Jason, perhaps you could reread your post and your responses to some of the comments there. I know I’ve used this analogy before, but you sound remarkably like a prosecutor, especially when it comes to the situation with HappiestSadist. You are going out of your way to find a way to support the view that Ophelia deliberately used the wrong pronouns, even screencapping something from fucking 2012. (Incidentally, several times you link a specific (first) name with a nym, and no one objects, which leaves me a bit confused.) You repeatedly challenge those questioning your uncharitable interpretations to try to provide a nondamning explanation for this or that.* It’s all very prosecutorial, and not what anyone would expect from a friend or colleague trying to be fair.
And by the way:
No, it isn’t, and it’s not for you to decide in what contexts we can or can’t address it.
* For example: “But I stipulated, for your purposes, that this did not actually happen. I still look forward to you knocking down any of the premises that perhaps the question of ‘is a trans woman a woman’ might be simpler than Ophelia or her defenders, yourself included, are suggesting — even if, as I do, and as I explained in the post you didn’t read, you believe that gender is a societal construct and the concept of “womanhood” is specious and worth examining.” You stipulated?
Jason, please don’t leave the network, but please do take a break from this thread for a while, and then re-read everything (I understand that some comment(s) were inadvertently sent to the spam folder, so the thread, and the numbering, might look a little odd now).
We all get that you are trying to help, but at the moment you aren’t actually helping despite your best intentions.
Some trans people have undoubtedly been hurt. Yet more have been hurt because of the spin put on what Ophelia said, and others are hurt because our favourite bloggers are fighting one another over something that should have been settled privately – that is, assuming you have some private means of contacting one another. You know, email, that kind of thing. I seem to recall PZ mentioning a back-channel once or twice.
Anyhow, all this public fighting amongst colleagues isn’t helping anyone.
P.S. Telling anyone what their emotional state is? That’s a big no-no!
That certainly wasn’t my impression, about how it’s being framed. I’m reading it as your part in the clusterfuck, as well as that of some of your colleagues, has created a toxic atmosphere for OB. Personally, I’d have already put out my resume if any of my co-workers said some of the things that OB’s colleagues have said abut her, and no, I’m not talking about pointing out disagreements and thoughtful explanations of harmful behavior.
I know I’m not the person you want to hear from, Jason, but we were friends at one point. Cut the crap. Own the reality. Stop standing there exclaiming that “she expressly said it wasn’t about you” as if that made the rest of us stupid paranoiacs.
It’s not the disagreement that bothers me. It’s the poe-faced disingenuousness. Stop doing that. It’s the worst insult one person can offer to another. It’s bullshit, and it’s lying. Even if you don’t feel like it’s lying, and even if your conscious intent is not to lie.
It is lying, it is unacceptable, and it’s so obviously bullshit I’m stunned to see you and the rest of the lot doing it. This is something I expect from people of mediocre thinking skills and a less-than-average interest in straightforward dealings. Not from people like you.
Shocker.
No. Very few here believe that at all.
I recall seeing some tweets from Stephanie that I felt were rather nasty towards OB. Enough to cause me to unfollow her on twitter, and resolve not to continue reading (or commenting at) Almost Diamonds.
To follow up on Josh’s #113, Jason, consider how anyone–you, Ophelia, PZ, anyone on this network–would react to a blogger posting something about boundaries, say, and leading off by saying, “I realize that offering someone coffee in an elevator is not sexual harassment.”
Now imagine that the poster added a disclaimer to the bottom of the post that says, “I’ve been accused of aiming my comments at Rebecca Watson. I’m talking about principles; I’m not talking about Rebecca at all. I’m sorry that she’s so paranoid.”
I believe it. I just think the way you’re going about it is pure asshattery.
Is nobody allowed to come out unequivocally “yes” on the question of “are trans women actually women” without it being an attack on Ophelia? That’s what it sounds like, @117. And I don’t think answering yes to that question is anything like “asking for coffee in an elevator isn’t harassment”.
Jason Thibeault @ # 23: Trans identity is a separate and distinct axis from gender.
Yeah, there’s the former Trans World Airways, and the Trans Am sportscar, and Transcendental Meditation™… Trans people don’t have any more reason to discuss gender than they do the Humboldt Current or the World Series of 1952, the questions just don’t intersect at all.
Jason Thibeault @ # 27: If a single trans person tells me to back down on this, I will…
Do you consider Tigger the Wing… @ # 21 a double trans person, or a non trans person, or what?
Ophelia Benson @ # 100: There are several who have trashed me, and only one of me.
You have also received some explicit solid support from a certain Myers, 800-lb gorilla of FtB.
Please stick around!
Yeah, that’s helping.
Context is everything, and we’re not idiots. An idiot might believe, “I just felt the urge to make this here lovely affirmation, out of the blue. Ophelia? What’s an Ophelia? I have no idea what you’re talking about! I’m just commenting on my own views…”
noxiousnan @ 112
I just wanted to repeat it, because it’s that good.
Josh: people want to talk about the thing they think this fight is about. They want to talk about the core argument, and yes, it’s the thing that got people mad at Ophelia about, but they’re allowed to argue a different side of the question than Ophelia without actually being an assault on Ophelia.
If that is the case, Jason, then perhaps they could be honest and state as much? This coyness about directly mentioning Ophelia’s name smacks of attempts at plausible deniability to many people.
Jason @ 119
You got that from Will, did you? You’re “regurgitating” it?
It’s a tight little community. As someone pointed out in a comment yesterday, I stood up for Rebecca Watson when the shit hit the fan. For four years I stood up for her. FTB and Skepchick work together at times. The tight little community has been talking about me a lot lately – and not in a good way. This isn’t “narcissism” on my part, as Kiran Opal so hatefully said on Twitter (that’s another one who used to be a friend of mine). I don’t want this kind of attention. This is just basic pattern detection. Yes HADD is a thing, but that doesn’t mean all detected patterns are false. No, I don’t believe that Olivia in no way had me in mind in that post. She’s half-admitted she did, after all.
The more you talk, the more I want to get away from you and your friends.
Someone hit Jason with a clue-by-four for me, please?
I think I’m invisible.
I did just that, in a discussion thread on Ophelia’s Facebook page.
And she liked the comment.
I did not get that from Will at all, Ophelia. I got that from Josh at 113 and Masked Avenger at 117, that anyone answering the question must needs be directly attacking you because otherwise why would they ever say it. That Will also came to the conclusion that anyone talking about the core question is de facto deemed attacker suggests it is a kind of obvious conclusion to draw from the evidence, insofar as everyone who’s talked about the core question has, thus far, been deemed an attacker.
And I believe Olivia said “it could be applied to your situation” but I don’t know, and neither do you, that she intended it as an attack. It’s possible, but I didn’t see anything remotely like “admitting” such in anything she said.
While we’re talking about reading into people’s emotional states, reading people as attackers and dishonestly motivated over and over and over again has got to be problematic too, right? I mean, it’s assuming intent that might not be there.
That’s why I said HALF-admitted it. God almighty can you read anything I say accurately?
Honestly I think you would do better on this thread if you just took a deep breath and admitted to yourself that you detest me. All this denial must be warping your ability to read what’s on the screen. Something is, at least.
Are you running low on straw yet? Note the emphasis which I added for your assistance.
Jason@109
If five (!) people write something they/you need to affirm “is not about you”, do you know what the reasonable conclusion is? And it’s those five people, plus a few more offering criticism (valid or not), plus some really, really vicious commenters. This doesn’t mean Ophelia has never said or done anything worth criticising ever. But joining in with the mob doesn’t help, however valid some point of yours may be.
You may not have intended to attack Ophelia, but your post was clearly written in anger. Please reread the phrases I reference in 68. I’ve always seen you as a thoughtful and reasonable person. I simply cannot believe you will defend a phrase like “ostensibly inadvertently” – the more I think about that one, the more it shocks me.
Also – please read Tigger’s comments. All of them. You, specifically. Tigger did what you requested.
Signal boosted that for you Tigger. I mean, *I* can see you, but …
Is it possible Tigger @21 was not there the first time through, was held in moderation for a time? Until Pierce pointed it out, that they’re trans and they think I’m so wrong as to be lying, I swear I *did not see it there*.
That said, since one trans person believes I’m talking over them, I’ll stop. Bye.
Please do keep thinking I detest you, Ophelia. I don’t. I’m just fucking disappointed is all.
Jason, you need to think more about the context within which your post and other network posts were made. People have not merely been coming out unequivocally “yes” on that question, they’ve been attacking Ophelia’s own response, saying that her refusal to answer the yes/no question amounted to a tacit “no,” and accusing her of wishing or inciting harm upon trans people. Attacking, dehumanizing, possibly attempting to get her kicked off the network, and branding her a TERF or a conspirator with known TERF — which surely you realize is a profoundly damaging branding to be stuck with. Please don’t come here in the middle of that context with your woeful “is nobody allowed” remark.
Thanks, people.
I’m not used to being invisible.
I make sure that I’m far too flamboyant to be ignored. =^_^=
With the “omg it’s so wrong to dig up evidence of my pronouns being stated here from 2012!”, that’s sort of a baffling argument? I mean, someone who was not actually Jason or myself found some proof that they were. That’s called “backing up your argument with evidence”, which is supposed to be a good thing? Because from what I can see, any disagreement here has been either an unsubstantiated attack without proof and no quotes, or else slymepit-like stalking. Heads you win, tails we lose.
As to the use of my first name, that’s been happening on here since I first started commenting at PZ’s. It’s a common first name, and also nothing like linking my full name, face and nym.
By the way, Jason is right that my #21 was lost in the æther for a while.
But it was up when I made #111 and subsequent comments that were ignored.
@ Tigger_the_Wing:
On that note, love your new sub-nym/moniker/whatever the word I can’t think of right now is. 🙂
I replied to 111, but did not acknowledge the gentle “you should go away and come back to this later” suggestion from you Tigger, nor others’. Probably because my hackles are still up. You’re right. I am glad that I didn’t ignore your @21 on purpose. I should have signed up for email subscription, so I would see every post instead of refreshing manually.
Either way, people appear to legitimately think I’m a dishonest interlocutor so there’s no point in my continuing anyway. I tried though, dammit.
Jason, I understand, being an ancestor of sorts to four grown sons, four grandsons and their three half-brothers, and foster-parent to other young men, – not forgetting adopted gran to Josh – that testosterone is something that makes it very, very difficult to back down when in ‘fight mode’.
That is why it would be a good idea to kick your feelings out of the driving seat and let your intellect take over for a while, until everyone is calmer. I don’t pretend it is easy, but closing the tab and coming back tomorrow would help immensely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PatrickG, I couldn’t resist; thank Pierce R. Butler for the inspiration.
Jason,
Nowhere in Ophelia’s writing is there a “Dear Muslima.” There’s no “who’s intellectual active [is] more of a guy thing'”. There’s no “‘The atheism variable … doesn’t have … that certain extra estrogen vibe”.
All there is, is, “I was asked a question in a ‘Yes or No’ way that struck me as a rhetorical gambit in a game I didn’t want to play, rather than an honest attempt to gain understanding of my views, and thus I refused to answer it.”
That’s it.
Good pattern-detection skills don’t mean seeing patterns where they don’t exist. You bringing Dawkins, Harris, and Shermer into the mix highlights just how bad your pattern-detection skills are. These three men (Shermer in exquisite detail) have their faces clearly engraved on Mount SexistMore, and have even posed proudly in front of those engravings. What Ophelia had written, devoid of any context, could be taken as a blurry photo of a face carved onto the surface of Mars (hey, yeah, I squinted my eyes at the same photo, and I saw it too!). But you (and many others), upon being presented this photo of a face-on-Mars, threw prior probability right out the window and said, “Holy SHIT! Martians are real, and they’re carving human faces on their planet’s surface!”. Ophelia, under no obligation to do so, even commissioned a follow-up flight: “See, just did a close up fly-by… no face on Mars.” She’s published those results twice now. She’s followed up with intricate deep-dive analysis to show
1) There is no face
2) Here’s why the face appeared to be there
3) Here’s why the appearance of a face is so incredibly different than there not actually being a face.
4) By the way, again, here is the fly-by data: there is no face.
FtB may not be a fit for you, but not for the reasons you think….
Mea culpa:
Should obviously be
I would just like to state that I am not up to date on everything that has been said and done by Heina, and Dana, and Jason, and Olivia.
But I would just like to make clear my position that *I* am *against* kicking puppies. I think puppy-kicking is wrong, and cozying up to puppy-kickers is immoral.
*whistles innocently*
@ Tigger_the_Wing:
I meant to mention him in the original comment, as well, but my submit finger got all trigger happy. Props to PRB as well!
Actually, several trans people have been posting on B&W lately, and their comments have been far more interesting and thoughtful and enlightening than anything I’ve seen from the simplistic mantra-repeating crowd.
Jason, and Ophelia, for what it’s worth I do not believe every person who weighed in to affirm “trans women are women” was deliberately attacking Ophelia or trying to drum her out of the movement. The problem is that coordinated–or should I say correlated?–scoldings and distancings have that effect. How could they not? And, Jason, how could you and others read some of the things that were being said about Ophelia, and the reasoning behind it, and not realize that you were contributing to a toxic pile-on?
And the toxicity wasn’t just in the personal toll on Ophelia. Guilt-by-association, insistence on simplistic slogans, runaway branding of Ophelia as somebody who wants to “deny trans people the right to exist”–that stuff is intellectually toxic. I’m not saying you did those things. But you and others must have seen that stuff going on, and to my knowledge none of you ever addressed it. You were too busy chiding Ophelia.
Ophelia’s admitted she made some wrong moves. Could you and some of your fellow bloggers admit the same?
For my part, I hope BOTH of you stay on FtB. And I apologize for actions of my own that cut off some opportunities for communication.
Oh, that is a shame, screechymonkey, because I was just about to open a café along the lines of those cat-cuddling-cafés in Australia.
It was going to be a combined poor-person,-feminist-and-puppy-kicking-café; I planned on calling it Serf and Terf and Curs.
Evidence that you told someone your pronouns in 2012 does not, in my view, lead to any reasonable conclusion that they should know them in 2015. And it’s not the same thing, as you proceeded to present it, as “Like Jason posted, OB was given my pronouns, in 2012 at the earliest!” suggesting that this had been happening continuously since then. Frankly, even if you provided evidence that you’d told her your pronouns much more recently, I still wouldn’t necessarily expect her to remember them. She has exchanges with thousands of people every week. I have a very short memory for people’s names and details. In fact, I saw your comments at Pharyngula for a long time, and remembered neither your pronouns (especially because people using they/their would look like a default for if people don’t know your pronouns or you didn’t want your gender known) nor that you’d ever used a first name. I also didn’t know or remember that you were trans.
A charitable and perfectly reasonable interpretation is that she forgot. (I also don’t think it’s reasonable in general to expect people to check on FB, but then I’m not on FB and don’t really know how it works.) You can call that careless, thoughtless, rude, or just forgetful, but it’s a leap from there to believing or suggesting that there was intentional misgendering. (I’m not minimizing the real practice of intentional misgendering and the reasonable fear that it’s happening – I just don’t think a 2012 comment is any sort of evidence that the misgendering was deliberate in this case.)
OK. Like I said, I didn’t remember.
I wasn’t suggesting that (and your anger over the screencap is more than understandable), but it is actually something like it. By which I mean, it makes me worry given your situation. Because I’m a worrier, even about people I dislike.
Just to confirm – I absolutely did forget what I was told in 2012. I shed a lot of what I’m told – there’s too much to keep, and I’ve always had a crap memory anyway.
B&W without all these unbearable ads? God, yes.
Jason @47, you provided this rationale for your feelings:
Ophelia’s response included linking to her post, wherein she wrote:
Some may consider me pedantic, but that post is actually saying that what’s
“exactly like the slimers” is the act of “obsessively monitor[ing] every word of mine that they can get access to” — it refers to actions, not to character.
Specifically, “THEY are like slimers” is not an accurate adumbration; it should have been “THEIR ACTIONS are like those of slimers”.
I note that, in other cases, you appeal to that distinction yourself, e.g. (my emphasis):
So, I think that when you write things like “But you did paint me as an example of toxicity.”, you are being imprecise to the point of being misleading.
FWTW.
PZ has weighed in:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/08/04/and-some-of-the-boxes-are-wired-to-explode/
Oh well.
B&W is the only blog I regularly read on FTB. Where it goes, I go.
Forgetting pronouns, especially with people you’re not close to, that’s a reasonable mistake to make. And not one that I even take as any kind of offense unless we’re close. Persistently doing it after being corrected, not so much. The rest, and how a lot of people, from colleagues to (former) fans and readers have been treated, and are still being accused of some elaborate conspiracy, that’s another. That many many people, not all of whom know each other, or get along at all, are seeing these statements and saying “hey, this is incorrect/a dog whistle/hurtful” is not some attempt to slander anyone.
And the “you just suck at pattern recognition!” thing being lobbed at Jason? He’s not the only one who noticed that the behaviour and even some of the wording has been identical to some other well-known atheists when called on some issues they may have some blind spots about. Calling people asking for clarifications, and expressing support for their trans friends anything like the Red Scare is beyond hyperbolic.
Do you want to know why I didn’t comment here until now for so long? Because I was and am afraid. Between some of the company you keep, and after what happened, I fear for my safety and what little privacy is possible.
Lota is too large for your puny pronouns.
I didn’t persistently do it after being corrected that I know of. As I told you earlier, I was never corrected. You never told me what to say, you just said something like “of course you know what my pronouns are.” I have never deliberately done that. I asked you what was correct, iirc, and you never came back.
Someone was just remarking that nothing will ever be enough. Even the most transparent statement, even agreement itself, won’t be enough. Because your interlocutors are past wanting an answer. They have a different goal.
:-/
I’ve written five different comments attempting to find a conciliatory path and acknowledging almost everyone’s desire to do the best from our various perspectives, and I still can’t quite get it right. So I’m done for the evening, but I did want to say re: Jason’s above post that I do believe he is sincerely trying to help, as I’ve been reading his blog and casually conversing, mostly through comments, for a while now, and nothing has suggested to me that he would be acting in bad faith here. It’s very, very clear to me that there is a massive communications disconnect – or several – between our various camps. I’m not really sure what to do to resolve that, or if it’s even possible.
Well, PZ says I have to own it. I thought I already had. Twice.
My argument, again, was that a screenshot of a comment from 2012 isn’t, to anyone looking at this fairly, evidence if deliberate or even willfully negligent misgendering; and that to suggest that it is, as Jason did, is itself evidence of at least a hostile intent (as was your “since 2012 at the earliest!”).* You haven’t responded to that, really.
It’s also not evidence of “persistently doing it after being corrected.” Even if there were evidence of more than one episode of misgendering in the ensuing three years (which I haven’t seen, but it could exist), a fair and charitable reading – especially given Ophelia’s explicit statements that it was unintentional and the fact that she used the pronoun most people would given your name – would be that she forgot more than once. That could cause offense if you felt it was thoughtless, but that’s a very different sort of offense from that which would naturally accompany malicious and deliberate misgendering or “I’ll use whatever pronouns I want.”
I absolutely get why you’d be more suspicious about misgendering in general and perhaps more wary given what you regarded as other warning signs, but feeding the narrative that her misgendering was willfully negligent or malicious on the basis of the evidence isn’t right.
* I also saw a comment in which you said that Ophelia had been “denying” that you were FB friends. There wasn’t a link, but I don’t remember seeing that. I’ve only seen her say that she doesn’t necessarily know the pronouns or other information of everyone she’s friends with on FB. Again, you could consider it thoughtless not to check accessible information before referring to people, but that’s a different offense from being disrespectful of or malicious towards you as a trans person.
I really think Ophelia is appreciating your feelings, but you have pushed a certain hostile narrative and seem intent on continuing to escalate even when your suspicions are unfounded.
@ 151 Ophelia Benson
You would think the fact that HappiestSadist had to remind you about the screencap (@ 101) would be a clue. That happened two months ago, not three years.
What was analogous to McCarthy tactics was the insistence, by some, on immediate, agreement with the most simplistic formulation of the issues involved (“yes or no”), the atmosphere of suspicion (“why would she refuse to answer if she wasn’t one of THEM?”), the guilt-by-association (“the company you keep,”) the cherry picking of “evidence” against Ophelia and the resulting dossier, and the perceived rush by some people to distance themselves from Ophelia. (I say perceived, because think that in most cases, people really did not mean to be unfair.) It’s an imperfect analogy, but it’s not “beyond hyperbolic.”
@ Ophelia Benson:
As I said over at PZ’s post, I would be very interested to see you respond to issues related to TERFs, Brennan/Hungerford, etc. But Christ on a cracker, I’m not going to ask you do that when people are analogizing your behavior to treason and rape apologetics, to mention just a few recent developments. Maybe when the dust settles some.
I appreciate your writing because you frequently write about hard questions, admit confusion*, and forge ahead anyway. I hope you don’t stop because of this (wherever you end up), and I will definitely continue reading your work.
* Oh wait, I forgot. It’s all a smoke screen to cover your nefarious motives.
Jason, your characterization of Ophelia’s remarks on that thread is sufficiently inaccurate to be called a lie. #51 is absolutely correct about adjectives and what they are, but even if it wasn’t other parts of your characterization are also terribly inaccurate.
Please demonstrate.
I’m sorry, but no. You are really really reaching to rescue that comment, but it just isn’t happening. When people say “do you believe trans women are women”, “women” is a noun. It is not an adjective. That punk who Andy Dufresne helped get his GED would have underlined it. The one adjective does modify the one noun. There is no doubt about this and it is not a matter of opinion and it does not reduce the dignity of trans people or folk.
The nonsense gets deeper and deeper the further I read down this thread.
Jesus fucking christ. You cannot be serious. She defended herself at 56 by doubting that her words had a serious impact “To trans people in general” an enormous category that must easily include tens of millions of people and probably more, you lie by portraying that as equivalent to a claim that your tiny blog has an impact on her, a single person.
Lady Mondegreen @164,
The other bit of McCarthyism I noticed was the ominous references to secret evidence. “I have here in my hand a list of Facebook posts, which I cannot share with you…..”
Ophelia does not claim never to make mistakes. She freely admits that certain things can rub her up the wrong way. I will not presume to argue any details of this whole affair; I’m quite sure I haven’t read every post or comment and, while I am on Facebook, I don’t do Twitter. Moreover, I am out of my depth when it comes to the experience of trans people; I’ve picked up a lot more than I ever knew, but I doubt I’ve scratched the surface. As a respecter of individuals, that extends to all the individuals presently under discussion. I persist in seeing them all as individuals, with both commonalities and differences, because my experience of the world has been very consistent in teaching me that genuinely monolithic groups of individuals don’t really exist and no one person can ever truthfully claim to be speaking for any entire group.
My defences of Ophelia on an earlier thread were fairly general and related to the herd-like behaviour that had gripped many individuals who were critical of her to a degree I think was unwarranted. Why am I bothering to add my voice to this far busier thread? Because this thread contains examples of one reason that has been crucial to my maintaining a kind of loyalty to her for about 15 years now (so my observation is not based on a post or a tweet or a “like” from three months ago or two years ago, but is backed up by a much longer-term exposure to how she does things – that’s as close as I will get to claiming “privilege”). And it’s very simply this: even after an enormous amount of acrimony and displays of temper, let an individual calmly show her, to her satisfaction, that she has, in fact, been wrong about a certain point and ought therefore to have done something differently , she apologises with no frills. None of the “not-pologies” we see so often when people are squeezed into having no further choice. Ophelia does not let her sometimes considerable upset prevent her from acknowledging facts, once they have properly been demonstrated to be facts. It’s a trait that can compensate for a great deal, as indeed, it is explicitly intended to, and it’s one I wish I saw more among Ophelia’s detractors.
End of message.
P.S. On re-reading before sending, I notice that the intention to correct mistakes, as opposed to maintaining the position that they weren’t made, regardless of new information, is analogous to the difference so often pointed out between science and religion.
So, is anyone still claiming that Ophelia somehow has the power to hurt trans people in general, rather than the few who read her blog? To whom she has apologised, in public or private?
We cannot have an honest discussion about what makes us who we are if people aren’t going to see that asking the wider question – of how gender is recognised and expected to be performed in our society – in no way invalidates the particular gender claims of an individual*.
Of course being transgender modifies who we are – we grew up receiving exactly the same powerful messages about gender roles as cis-people do, and knew exactly how society expected us to perform our gender – but when we tried to conform to the rules, instead of getting the approval that cis-gendered people get, we were usually completely overruled and forced to perform a different, alien (to us) gender, based on physical attributes that are meaningless to small children.
That is why it is particularly cruel for anyone to deny that a trans woman is a woman. She’s faced that denial since infancy, finally gets up the courage to fight to be recognised for who she actually is, and still gets told something like ‘only womyn born womyn know what it is like to be womyn’.
Ophelia has never, ever denied that trans women are women. After decades of looking into the problem of the way society sends messages to us all about what it expects from people assigned as women, why would she? Her refusal to answer a “Gotcha!” question – and in the context in which it was asked, that was exactly what it was – is not, and cannot be, interpreted as answering in the negative, even if the question was phrased in such a way that it could be taken out of context and made to look simple and innocent. I’m sure we’ve all come across people who are very, very good at that kind of behaviour (if you haven’t, count yourself extremely fortunate); ‘Gaslight’ wasn’t just a (rather good) movie.
If we see a pattern here, it is because ‘jumping on women and older people, and especially older women, for thought-crimes’, apparently in order to hound them out of a movement to which they’ve dedicated their lives, seems to have become something of a regular sport amongst parts of the atheist-skeptical movement. It’s horrible, and has to stop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Look at the kitten video that PZ posted. Now have a discussion about what size and shape the boxes perhaps ought to be, to make it easier for the kittens choose one, or to change from one to another. How does that interfere with how the kittens are currently playing? Having that discussion is nothing like imposing a referee to make sure only certain kittens get to play in a particular box.
Tigger @ #171:
That seems like the final word on the subject for me. You’ve summed up my feelings very nicely. Thanks.
…I’ve been trying to follow this weirdness. I’m a semi-regular lurker, though I’ve barely commented. I’m not interested in joining in any persecution or condemnation – I’m trying to understand where everyone is coming from, and why people are upset.
I want to check what was actually said in that gender critical Facebook group, because I’d seen this:
http://i.imgur.com/7Z7DeBf.png
It was supposedly in a thread about a trans woman with a beard. I can’t find it now though in the Facebook group – has it been deleted?
I can definitely understand why people are hurt by that conversation, if it actually was about trans women with typically masculine sexual characteristics like facial hair. Calling them “feminized males” who are going through a temporary trans phase because it’s the “in” fashion and everything else is “too last week” is…harsh, to say the least, and not really what I’d describe as compassionate or humanist.
That’s why I want to check that there’s not some additional context in that conversation I’m missing – or that it hasn’t been snipped/shopped/whatever – because I haven’t seen the thread that the image comes from, and it’s also the complete opposite of Ophelia’s clarification on this blog that she respects the identity of trans women who call themselves women.
(Just reading through that group now though, WOW at some of the posts from general commenters. I totally respect discussing the ambiguity of gender and what it means to be a woman, but what I see in that group is just bigotry, more than anything.)
Falcon, absent provenance and context, making a determination on such a basis is unsound.
@John Morales: Indeed, which is why I’m asking for more context.
Falcon – I don’t understand your comment. What are you asking me? I don’t own that group. I don’t endorse 100% (or 50% or indeed any) of its content. I don’t endorse everything I read. I don’t read exclusively things I endorse. I try to read widely. I’m allowed to do that. I’m not allowed to do that and stay on this network, according to many, but I am allowed to do it, according to me.
At the top of the group’s page it has a note on rules, which starts with this:
It’s for different views. That means no one will agree with everything said there, because the views will be different.
I don’t understand what you’re asking about that image, either. Someone went to the trouble to screencap me making a 3 word joke, to show…what? That I made a joke when I should have denounced?
I have no idea what the thread was about. I don’t bother to remember things like that. I probably spent all of 10 seconds scanning it and then made a flippant joke. Who cares?
To repeat with emphasis: I don’t agree with everything said in that group. Far from it. I don’t particularly endorse the group (nor do I denounce it). I don’t, frankly, think it’s any of anyone else’s business what Facebook groups I read. (For me “joining” is reading. It’s not endorsing or “belonging to”; it’s just reading.)
I was asking you what that particular conversation in the screencap was about, because I can’t find it in the group – was it actually about a trans woman?
It matters because such a flippant joke in response to these comments:
“They are feminized males. Go forth and be such. Do not claim to be a woman.”
“What exactly is the objection to these males referring to themselves as men, albeit men expressing unorthodox gender behaviors?”
Is the exact opposite of respecting the identity of trans women. Which is why I want to know if there’s something I’ve missed. I’m trying to understand why people are getting upset and be completely informed.
Ophelia, I think the most recent discussion at Pharyngula very clearly shows why that was asked. The narrative being you hang around with bad people and laugh at their jokes and that what you say there belies what you’ve written here about your views and is definitive proof that people were justified in their suspicions.
Very motivated reasoning, very uncharitable readings, IMO.
I don’t speak for Ophelia, she’s more than capable of speaking for herself, but since she has expressly said that trans women are women, I don’t see how policing every conversation she has ever had in her entire life is relevant.
Falcon, why are you asking me what the particular conversation was about when I just told you I don’t know? I just said, I probably spent 10 seconds skimming it and then made a flippant joke and then forgot all about it. I don’t memorize every damn thing I ever read or type – to put it mildly; I forget my own posts 15 minutes after I type them.
@John Morales: Actually, I asked because I’m trying to understand everyone’s point of view, because I don’t want to be uncharitable. I saw that conversation, thought “gee, that does look kind of hurtful, but it might be unfairly taken out of context.”
@Ophelia: Okay, I’ll stop.
Falcon, the point isn’t so much for you to stop, as it is for you to get what I’m saying. I don’t remember it because it was utterly trivial.
Imagine for a second what it would be like to have total strangers cross-examining every trivial remark you’ve ever made in an effort to find things you said that could be seen as politically suspect in some way.
Okay, I can respect that. Sorry for joining in.
There seems to be a distinct lack of discipline here at FtB, in particular the irregular posting habits of many on the network. It’s just not good enough to have bloggers going AWOL for weeks or even months at time. There are also too many blogs on the network.
I make this comment as FtB doesn’t seem to works as a team with a basic unifying goal (PZM made the same observation a few days ago). A “tighter” FtB would benefit both readers and bloggers alike IMHO.
Well it’s getting tighter, don’t worry about that.
What pisses me off is that I financially support FTB because I believe it is a valuable and required voice. I have never met Ed, but I admire his integrity and honesty. I read three blogs daily, Ed’s, PZ’s, and your blog. If you leave, why should I continue to support all the other blogs on this network? The thought that I will be supporting voices that attack other FTB bloggers is sickening to me. On a daily basis, you provide a valuable and thought provoking voice in the FTB community. The other bloggers? Once in a blue moon?
I guess what I am saying is that if you and FTB agree to divorce, I will have some money available to support your patreon. I will work out some plan to support the FTB servers, while not contributing to the other bloggers that I personally, do not care to read or support even when they do post.
(Note: Yes, I agree that my view is juvenile, and I have zero voice in how FTB operates and my opinion on other FTB bloggers is irrelevant. However, it is my statement on the fact that there is a dictate for you to answer a “Yes/No” answer and that answer is more important and overrides your stated answers on how you support Trans* for self-identity, without hurdles, without questions, unreservedly).
The prosecution rests.
(I fell asleep during the closing argument.)
@ 187 SC
I read the whole thing, so offer a synopsis:
I’m a really, really nice guy who hasn’t done anything wrong! Won’t anyone think of MEEEEEEEE!!!
(And Ophelia gets accused of hosting a pity party. *rolls eyes* )