A lot of people have been asking me to comment on a recent video by Sabine Hossenfelder. I knew who she is — she is a science communicator who specializes in physics, and I’ve seen a few of her videos. They were OK, not particularly interesting to me, just because I’m on the biology side of the spectrum. Great, though, more people talking about science is a net positive.
But then she did the stereotypical physicist thing: she studies the fundamental building blocks of the universe, energy and matter and mathematics, so she decided to slide over into a field she knows nothing about and explain it to us. That’s why people were pestering me to critique her recent video, titled Is being trans a social fad among teenagers?
I guess having a Ph.D. in physics makes you an expert in psychology and sociology as well as biology.
I took a look. I only made it 34 seconds into the video before I closed it and said, “Fuck this.” This is how she opens:
On the one side you have people claiming that it’s a socially contagious fad among the brainwashed woke who want to mutilate innocent children. On the other side there are those saying it’s saving the lives of minorities who have been forced to stay in the closet for too long. And then there are normal people like you and I who think both sides are crazy and could someone summarize the facts in simple words, which is what I am here for.
I am done. I’ll never be able to watch another of her videos. You’d think a physicist would at least understand logic, but there’s the fallacy of the false dilemma coupled to a bad case of physicist’s arrogance. It’s both-siderism with a vengeance. She claims to be all about No hype, no spin,
but she just made a false equivalence between people who are trying to legislate invasive, destructive meddling in people’s lives, and people who want to be left alone to live their lives without interference, and calls both of them crazy
. That she thinks the right to live a life without being tortured by religious fanatics is crazy is most definitely taking a side and putting a fierce spin on her opinion.
Goodbye, Sabine.
And sorry to everyone who wanted me to comment on the rest of her ideas. There’s 27 more minutes of that crap and I just couldn’t bear to continue. I’m cis, and I have no idea how trans people can persist in a society where that kind of nonsense gets served up at you constantly.
While I’m weak and unable to stomach such stupidity, at least Rebecca Watson, the Iron Skeptic, managed to cope. Here’s her take on Hossenfelder.
Yeah, what she said. One the one side you have people who listen to a half-minute of Sabine Hossenfelder and then flip the table, and on the other side there are those who can hear her out and then run circles around her.
Sabine : ” then there are normal people like you and I who think both sides are crazy.”
Emphasis added.
I wonder who she thinks is “normal” exactly? Intresting and telling choice of word there in my view.
Oh & from her wikipage :
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder
Hmm.. I wonder what Ethan Siegel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Siegel ) makes of this and how well he knows her and her views here given he’s the one with that wonderful blog ( https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang ) as far I’ve previously known? I doubt he’d approve of this.. Quick google hasn’t found anything yet.
I feel a bit called out, because I studied physics too, but eh, fair’s fair.
Very disappointed in Hossenfelder, I kind of liked her.
The most worrying issue, as I see it, is that Hossenfelder did not see how blatantly bigoted her position was. I very much doubt she would have waded into a racism issue or a sexism issue or even a homophobia issue with this kind of faux-reasonabilist both-sidesism. But transphobic stuff? That’s seen in a totally different light. Not a festering pool of bigotry but a genuine forum for reasoned debate.
Bottom line – if you start your engagement with a topic by presuming that a group are really fraudulent rapists, that’s bigotry, pure and simple.
speaking only for myself, it’s still better than how my life was before transition. it’s sooo crazy that i want people to have the freedom to do what they feel will help them have a life that feels worthwhile, right? we’re just as unhinged as the people that are agitating for eliminating that freedom as a matter of law. the experts are just educated stupid and don’t have reams upon reams of data that matches the improvement in life circumstances and self-esteem i experienced as my transition progressed.
Hossenfelder’s strength is ‘hard’ sciences and here she is good at debunking hype.
Going into things where embryology matters a lot… it is like when the late great Fred Hoyle tried to go into exobiology and into epidemics.
Regarding ignorance- I used to be much more of an asshole before I did my homework on stuff. People evolve.
SH does not get what it means when an issue has been heavily politicized and one side is out to replace “jew” or “n*gger” with some new group.
This is when doing the homework is extra important.
Oh, for Cthulhu’s sake, not this lie again.
This is that Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria syndrome again and it is a blatant lie.
Wikipedia gets this slightly wrong. There is no controversy around this idea among anyone who has looked at it. It’s just a lie.
Some quack MD who I won’t name never actually interviewed one single Trans person.
She interviewed a few parents of Trans children on anti-Trans websites and then made up a bunch of nonsense.
Sabine Hossenfelder could have looked this up on Wikipedia and figured it out in 30 seconds or so. Not impressed.
It isn’t easy.
Trans have a higher rate of suicide than the general population.
I don’t know any Trans people outside of the internet.
I did know of one accomplished Trans person though, among other things an MD.
She committed suicide a few months ago and left a lot of people in a state of complete shock.
Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers
We all know that there are a lot of street kids in the USA these days. A lot of these kids aren’t runaways, they are pushouts.
No one is looking for them and no one wants them back.
It is estimated that 20-40% of these kids are gay or Trans and that has a lot to do with why they aren’t at home any more.
Mindless bigots like Sabine Hossenfelder just make this problem worse, not better.
So being concerned about the high rates of suicide and suicide attempts by trans kids is a fringe position? Not something “normal” people should worry about? Fuq that.
Hossenfelder jumped the shark a while ago, unfortunately. Even her physics videos aren’t reliable — for example her recent relativity videos are really misleading to those who don’t already know the subject. Now she comes out with this garbage too… it’s sad, at one time she was a respected science communicator.
“…saving the lives of minorities who have been forced to stay in the closet for too long.”
Call me crazy, but I think that’s a good idea.
She wants simple words, does she? Alright. Here’s what Debi Jackson’s trans child is on record as saying when she was about 6: “Mom, I’m really a girl. I’m a girl inside.”
It doesn’t come any simpler than that, something that all trans people understand, but which our enemies never get to grips with.
I’ve dealt with invalidating pronouncements (not specifically anti-trans ones) by all kinds of authorities all my life. When I was a child (50-60 years ago), it did nearly lead me to commit suicide, but I learned to just hunker down and smile and nod and try to dismiss anything anyone told me about myself as the usual bullying by haters, which the world has no shortage of. I figure, haters gonna hate; if they don’t hate you for one thing, they’ll hate you for another. Granted, it contributed to my C-PTSD, but other people live with C-PTSD, so can I.
Despite the haters, I’ve managed to make a life, get a job, have a marriage and a family, and make a comfortable life. (Yes, I know I’m privileged.) Having strangers and especially people in power broadcast unrebutted lies and hate speech all over the world is disturbing, but I figure, I’ll just get on with my life. Either they’ll kill me or they won’t. Not much I can do either way.
Yeah, um, I feel like non-physicists are taking it for granted that at least her physics videos must be good, but. I never take it for granted that a physics popularizer is doing the physics right, there are a lot of pitfalls. I don’t know, I’ve never been able to get past those clickbait thumbnails.
Unfortunately this whole thing sounds like the beginning of a story where a celebrity gets rebuked by trans people and allies, and then gets love-bombed by TERFs. I don’t expect things to get better from here.
Even if it was some sort of fad to claim to be trans actually living the life of a trans person would chase away the pretend trans people in short order.
I saw Hossenfelder’s video a few days ago. My impression; yeah, she stuck her oar in where she shouldn’t have. If she doesn’t know she gave ammunition to TERFs, she’s incredibly naive.
On the other hand, she got a positive review from well-known biologist Jerry Coyne. Maybe he’s a seekrit physicist…
@ 16 timgueguen
I have some experience with this. I would like to make a minor correction, however. The term “trans” can cover a fairly large and diverse population, some of whom feel no need to transition socially or medically… so while a person might be trans, it could still be a mistake for them to take hormones or get surgery… I’m not sure how to phrase your point so it isn’t problematic, but it IS a valid point.
I transitioned over 25 years ago. I did so without going to a therapist to get a permission letter to get hormones. I found a pharmacy in Greece that would sell me injectable estradiol relatively cheap. I shared what I had found at my trans support group and one other person said they wanted hormones too so I gave them the info. About 2 weeks after their first dose, they gave me the rest of their hormones. It turned out the injection killed their sex drive and made it almost impossible to get aroused at all. That was too high a price to pay for them.
You’d think a physicist would at least understand that the POSITIVE particles are much BIGGER than the negative ones. And the positive particles are in the center, while the negative ones just hover and orbit around the center and make themselves harder to pin down in terms of exact positions. Or maybe she’s thinking of an antimatter universe where the opposite is true…?
Also, she’s not doing Germanic people any favors by reviving that old stereotype of ze rulebound Teutonic authoritarian mit ze strict binary worldview und no room for complexity or fluidity. (Did any Germans say the same things she just did when they burned all those books about trans people and what was known about them at the time?)
Sorry, lady. This isn’t physics, and principles of symmetry do not apply.
This isn’t algebra. The sides don’t cancel.
Loree @18: Fortunately there have been many developments in the treatment options for transgender people over the years. Hormones for transgender women can be given in many different regimens, whether injectable or oral, and oral hormones can be taken in different ways (swallowed or sublingual). There are options for transgender women who seek to retain higher sex drive and erectile function. Early in the course of the doctor-patient relationship the doctor should be asking the patient about their goals in medical transition, including questions related to sexual function, and adjust the treatment to these goals (and reassess over time, obviously). Of course, if none of the options available suit someone, the choice to forgo hormones is just as valid as any other.
I know white transgender men who are ambivalent about taking hormones because they want to avoid white male privilege, and black cisgender men who are ambivalent about taking hormones because of concerns regarding changing from being perceived as the ‘most ignored demographic to the most feared demographic’ as they described it. Life is complicated.
Unfortunately this whole thing sounds like the beginning of a story where a celebrity gets rebuked by trans people and allies, and then gets love-bombed by TERFs. I don’t expect things to get better from here.
Yeah, I’m sure she’ll be palling around with JK Rowling and her even more hateful chums pretty soon.
I’d thought about whether I would have been trans if it had been more acceptable when I was younger. The idea came to me naturally while I was trying to explain some part of myself to a counselor, so it didn’t come with baggage and nonsense. I’m very into roleplay and roleplaying games. I tend to mostly play characters of the other gender because when I make a character who’s the same gender I am, it tends to fall flat.
So I think I would have seriously considered being trans if that had seemed like an option. I wouldn’t have made it through 6 months of continuous interest in actually transitioning and an interview with a trained psychologist, though. My feelings are more about discovery and curiosity than a feeling of being uncomfortable with who I am (or was at the time). And during that period of my life I was looking for an escape. Transitioning wouldn’t have given me one. Reading on the other hand did wonders. Or at least exposed me to the idea of wonders.
#15 and #17 reinforce each other.
@ lanir # 24
“So I think I would have seriously considered being trans if that had seemed like an option.”
Lanir, just an observation here: transgender is not something that you can consider being, seriously or otherwise. It’s not an option in life. Either you’re trans or you’re not. It’s that simple.
Now from what you’ve written above, I can see how you might have asked the question, “Am I trans?” But you don’t ask, “Should I consider being trans?”
Or here: “I’d thought about whether I would have been trans if it had been more acceptable when I was younger.” Whether you’re trans or not has nothing to do with how socially acceptable it is at a given time. If you’re trans and it isn’t the least bit acceptable, you’re just plain out of luck. That’s the situation my generation faced for most of our lives. There’s no way we could have stopped being trans. We just had to suck it up. These days when it is more acceptable someone who isn’t trans can’t become trans just because the times seem more favorable.
If you’re transgender, it’s because that’s the way you’re made. If you’re not made that way, you never will be.
I’m still astonished at how utterly incurious some scientists are.
ROGD is just an updated version of “boys will wear dresses so they can win trophies in high school sports” argument that was used about a decade ago.
I watched some of her videos a few months back, and she said some things that sounded wrong to me as someone who just studied some physics in early college. Her attitude also seemed a bit off.
cormacolinde @29:
Could you give some examples?
“…transgender women who seek to retain higher sex drive and erectile function.” LOL. look at what you just wrote. LOL. “women” who seek to retain erectile function?!? LIGHT YOURSELF ON FIRE.
I watched a few of her physics videos, then stopped. They are not good.
nomdeplume @31: I’ve only seen maybe ten (max) of her videos on topics involving subjects I know well (particle physics, general relativity). They were good enough for me to recommend her to those who might be interested. I’d be curious to know what you mean by “not good”.
I’ve regularly been watching her science news and physics commentary videos.
I like the dry humour, I like the expertise. And it’s informative.
It is a bit odd seeing her opine on social matters, but.
She had a video back in (checks) 4 June 2022 about trans athletes, FWTW.
That one didn’t cause much of a stir.
—
Rob, did you see this one?
I found it rather interesting, not that I can judge its merits properly.
[What’s Going Wrong in Particle Physics? (This is why I lost faith in science.)] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu4mH3Hmw2o
[I made sure it did not embed — trick here on FTB is to not have the URL alone]
@Rob
As a rank amateur, I’m still very unhappy with her video and blob posts claiming that the Bullet Cluster is evidence against dark matter, and is evidence for modified gravity. Ex:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/05/dark-matter-situation-has-changed.html
The argument that she makes just seems to be shockingly bad. The point of the Bullet Cluster is that the gravitational lensing is coming from concentrations of energy which are definitely somewhere other than where the normal stars and gas and dust are. To paraphrase Sean Carroll, to make the Bullet Cluster observations fit a modified theory of gravity without dark matter, you would need to invent a new kind of gravity where sometimes the force of gravity comes from where the matter is not, and that’s just silly. Going a little further, you could invent a new field whose energy accounts for the spacetime bending that accounts for the lensing that we see in the Bullet Cluster, but that field energy would be high where the conventional matter is not, and there’s a very fine line between a new quantized field whose field strength (energy content) is high somewhere away from the standard matter compared to the hypothesis of some kind of particle dark matter (including primordial black holes, etc.). I’m sure Rob you could explain the difference if there is any. Is there actually a difference?
She says that some models show that the speed of collision of the two galaxies is unlikely on standard physics plus dark matter, and seems to be making the implicit argument that this unlikeliness of this event on that model is “more unlikely” than a modified theory of gravity without new matter that can make gravity come from where the matter is not. Again, I’m with Sean Carroll. I think this is very silly. No matter how unlikely that collision is, it seems far less likely that we need a theory of gravity where gravity comes from where the matter would be if it didn’t collide with some other matter.
Even if Trans was a choice, it’s not, why are people so afraid of people making that step. A lot of transphobia seems to be driven by a fear of men not conforming to gender roles. (Transmen are often ignore, save for the the occasional celebrity, who is accused of being lured away True Lesbianism ™ by the evil trans.
That men undergo hormone therapy and genital reconstruction in order to spy on women taking a shit is ridiculous. There are so many cis men who do it with even the hint of being trans.
Hopefully, I’m not coming off as both-siderism. Trans isn’t a choice and if want happy, productive transkids/adults then you need to treat them as the sex they identify as.
gijoe
I’m pretty sure you’re fine. You did not call out trans people and trans rights activists as being wrong or crazy, and so there’s no both-siderism. You solely attacked one side; that’s the opposite of both-siderism.
I think you also know the answer, which is systemic toxic masculinity plus systemic sexism with a small serving of religious bigotry on top. IMO.
Gerrard @35: Did you read all of Hossenfelder’s post, or are you just cherry-picking one small part of it? She says that neither dark matter alone, nor MOND alone, can explain all the phenomena we see (there’s a fairly long list for each side). It’s a volatile situation. As for MOND and the Bullet Cluster, maybe you or Carroll should check out some of the literature.
@Rob
I did read the whole post. I’m not talking about the whole post. I recognize the points that you’re making. You are not engaging with the point that I made. Again, my sole contention is that it’s very silly that she used the Bullet Cluster as evidence against dark matter. I did not claim that we only need dark matter and we do not need modified gravity to explain all observations. Hell, I didn’t even claim that we only need dark matter to explain the Bullet Cluster. You’re doing a gross strawman right now.
You cite I should read the literature. Ok. Let me refresh myself.
Also, let me ask the question again concerning Sean Carroll’s preemptive counter-argument: If you introduce a new field whose energy distribution explains the lensing of the Bullet Cluster, how is this different from positing dark matter? If the field is a quantized field, this means that the locations with higher energy have particles, right? That’s what a particle is in quantum field theory, an excitation in the corresponding quantum field, correct? So, how is creating a new field any different than positing a new kind of dark matter particle? Are we going to assume that this new field is not quantizable ala quantum field theory? That seems like a pretty big stretch.
Quoting Sean Carroll: (bolding added by me)
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/05/09/dark-matter-vs-modified-gravity-a-trialogue/comment-page-4/
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/05/09/dark-matter-vs-modified-gravity-a-trialogue/comment-page-4/
Sorry, one more important quote:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/05/09/dark-matter-vs-modified-gravity-a-trialogue/comment-page-4/
The same argument applies to the Bullet Cluster observations.
John @33: I found that video to be a breath of fresh air. I say that as an ex-particle physicist, though not one who worked on any of the stuff she excoriates. I also appreciate her sense of humour.
Gerrard @39:
Good catch! And I don’t plan to. We’ve been here before, and I’m not getting dragged into another long, frustrating exchange which we already had in the past. No how. No way.
@Rob
Ok. I was trying to be helpful to answer your question. I’m regret trying to be helpful in this case.
For anyone who cares, the earlier conversation is here:
https://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2021/08/13/establishing-non-existence-in-science/#comment-4787264
I still politely disagree. I agree philosophically with Sean Carroll. I agree with his trilemma above: In particular, I think it’s implausible, scientific and philosophically, to propose a new model of gravity where a gravity force or a bending of space time happens as a result of matter (energy density) but not according to the direction of these sources, ruling out prong #2. I think we have more than evidence to make a tentative but firm conclusion, ruling out prong #3. That leaves prong #1, which is that there is a source of gravity other than normal baryonic matter, aka dark matter. And assuming quantum field theory still applies, that means it’s particle dark matter.
So, the new fields of TeVeS can be thought of a new kind of dark matter (#1 prong), or they can be thought of a modification of gravity so that gravity doesn’t act according to the direction of the true location of the sources (#2 prong), meaning it’s not an alternative to dark matter, or it’s implausible. At this point, we’re just arguing semantics and not arguing about physics, IMAO, which is pretty frustrating.
I know I am a rank amateur, but it’s really frustrating to hear you argue that a new field that causes Newtonian gravity / causes bending of space time can be something other than dark matter.
It’s especially frustrating when you’re substituting your arguments in place of the arguments that Sabine made and then responding to me as though I originally attacked your arguments instead of attacking Sabine’s arguments. The specific argument that Sabine made (paraphrase “Bullet Cluster is evidence against dark matter because the collision speed is unlikely on certain dark matter models) is still quite nonsense, and your personal semantics arguments, paraphrase “a new field with degrees of freedom independent of the baryonic matter is not necessarily dark matter” is non-sequitir to my original complaint against Sabine.
Rob
Also, it was like 8 short comments between us (shorter already than the comments we’ve had here), over the course of only two days. I think you’re confusing this conversation with other conversations that we’ve had in the past.
Gerrard:
Carroll:
That’s what Hossenfelder does. From her article;
And there’s plenty to merit that view without the bloody Bullet Cluster. If you have a particular problem with that one issue, take it up with Hossenfelder.
[Thanks for your perspective, Rob]
Rob,
Godsdamnit. I am not talking about her whole article. I am talking about her very narrow claim that the Bullet Cluster, by itself, is evidence against dark matter (because the observed collision velocities are unlikely on certain dark matter models). That’s it. That’s what I’m critiquing. I am not critiquing other points made in the article, like what you’re talking about.
Again, I am not taking issue with any of her conclusions. I am not taking issue with the broader points of her blog article. I am taking issue with one very specific and narrow point. She could be entirely right about the broader points of her blog article, but she would still be wrong in the narrow argument that I cited.
PZ:
Oh, that’s easily explained. Sometimes we don’t.
“Fifty by thirty” and all that.
If you meet a trans person over fifty, chances are excellent that they have lots of scars and rough edges, and are tough as nails.
Grace
[Thanks for your actually relevant perspective, Grace
… while a bunch of cis bloke buffoons shout at each other about the fucking Bullet Cluster]
Anything to change the subject as usual. Wouldn’t want cis blokes upset in the feels.
Apologies to all for my contribution to the derailment. It should have been taken elsewhere.
Rebecca Watson’s video was quite thorough and well done. I’m going to have to go back and watch it again now.
@ Garbage Tier Human
Yet another example of another cisperson jeering at transpeople for being so obviously foolish. And as usual all you’re demonstrating is that you don’t begin to understand transgenderism or transgender people. Education can, and perhaps will, correct ignorance.
I can’t really substantiate this claim, but I have the suspicion that most people who use the both sides argument aren’t really in the center but tend to lead to one side, and it’s usually the wrong side. The both sides argument is just meant to appear balanced.
I’ve not had the time to watch either her or Rebecca’s video but honestly I am not interested in watching Sabine talk about issues on which she has 0 expertise. Her physics videos are pretty good, her quantum computing video was good, his AI videos are fine and I guess it goes down hill from there. She was likely way out of her depth in this video.
BTW, I don’t think you need to have a humanities degree or whatever to talk about social issues or make videos on these subjects but you will have to invest time and effort. At the rate she is churning out videos, it’s pretty clear that her main career now is being a youtuber and that leaves no time to devote to topics she had no expertise to begin with. In physics subjects she can obviously rely on her past experience but it means that there is 0 chance she can research the other topics to any decent level of depth.
@59 lotharloo, I don’t know about Sabine but it’s clear that Rebecca did invest the time and effort to researth the topic. And she made the transcript and all the references public in the link below.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/82473426
Oops, I accidentally neologized researth. I suppose that’s how Earth scientists do research.
Aw… man! Just as I was beginning to like her… 😕
“flip the table”
Blase Bonpane reference? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsFddXcMTKA
I was also recently annoyed by Hossenfelder’s ridiculous handwaving about physics supposedly being stalled due to not enough attention to philosophy of science: https://iai.tv/articles/why-physics-has-made-no-progress-in-50-years-auid-1292
@58 I can substantiate it and you are absolutely right. In fact that’s the whole point of the critique of BoThSiDeSers … they normalize the bad side and accuse the good side of being just as bad.
“Did you read all of Hossenfelder’s post, or are you just cherry-picking one small part of it?”
Criticizing one point is not cherry picking, moron.
“That’s what Hossenfelder does.”
And Gerrard said it’s fine, so what’s your beef?
“If you have a particular problem with that one issue, take it up with Hossenfelder.”
He did. Your comment is like demanding that PZ must criticize Ken Ham et. al. to their faces rather than posting his criticisms here.
“Garbage Tier Human”
Accurate handle.
“Also, she’s not doing Germanic people any favors by reviving that old stereotype of ze rulebound Teutonic authoritarian mit ze strict binary worldview und no room for complexity or fluidity.”
You’re the one reviving it, asshole. There are legitimate grounds for criticizing Hossenfelder but her accent isn’t one of them–but is very typical of you.
I think that we need a popular biologist to make a video explaining how symmetry is nonsense because we don’t observe antimatter stars and planets, which should be equal in number with matter stars and planets, so obviously antimatter is merely an illusion.
Point to loads of bad physics papers on papermills, wave hands, call it an equally good job.
There are those who can, who research and teach.
Those who can’t do either make youtube videos about shit they know nothing about.
Those who can’t do either of the above, manage.
Those who can’t even manage go into politics.
wzrd1 @68: As I pointed out earlier (#17), there’s already a popular biologist praising Hossenfelder’s video (although he does object to her “trans activist-approved” use of ‘gender’). Maybe he can be convinced to be equally clueless about antimatter.
“I am done. I’ll never be able to watch another of her videos” same. I like the sobriquet for Rebecca Watson as the Iron Skeptic.
@60 imback:
Thanks for the link! Yes it looks to me that Sabine was way out of her depth and it’s also very disappointing. She doesn’t do shit like this when it comes to her own area of expertise. She has in the past criticized particle physicists for overhyping results that have barely 3 sigma confidence and building narratives and “mathematical fiction” to sell theories yet here she is talking about studies with “very small sample size” and spreading misinformation.
It has been a long time since I last logged on here. I’m sad that this occasion is why I’m now logging on. I’m going to re-post what I just wrote on social media:
Quote:
A YouTube cis feminist trying to draw a distinction between TERFs and people she thinks are more reasonable:
“I’m not talking about people who have measured disagreements over things like, ‘Should we have clubs specifically for cis women…'”
That, actually, is a TERF talking point.
I turned off the video at that point.
I am so fucking tired of cis feminists who think they’re true blue allies and actually suck. Actually, I’m tired of any cis person who thinks this, feminist or not.
(end quote)
Yes, I’m talking about Rebecca Watson’s video. It’s in the beginning of her video. Quite disappointing.
I’m not going to start some long debate with any of you over this but what she said was fucked up.
I’m out.