Does anyone else find the comments and threats that come from trans-women (formerly males) to be extremely masculine in their tone and choice of language. I've not heard many woman in my life call another woman a cunt or bitch or hag. And even more rarely, have I heard a woman threaten the life of another person. On the other hand, this is pretty typical and strong emotionally charged language from a sex of human being incapable of emotional nuance-- aka males. How much of this trans-activism is real misogyny masquerading as progress? The most extreme elements of that end of the debate increasingly feel to me more and more like another attempt for insecure males to dominate female spaces and female-only issues. The language is extremely indicative of this to me.
Your thesis about violence and harrassment is absolutely true. BUT:
"Of course threats of violence made against TERFs are probably not as common" is absolutely false. 'TERF' is no longer a neutral descriptor, but an active term of abuse regularly used to attack vulnerable detransitioners who try to tell their stories; lesbians who assert that by definition they are same-*sex* attracted; and by trans women like Jessica Trill and Debbie Hayton who identify as transsexual. (Transwomen happy with their male bodies and penises attack them for "centring their vaginas.") Even rejecting the term "uterus-haver" can get a woman denounced as a "TERF" who should "die in a grease fire" or get "punched in the face."
Trans rights are in our civil and human rights codes, and hate speech legslation. (As they should be.) The radical activists who attack Atwood, Rowling and anyone who believes in women's sex-based rights radiate toxic masculinity. Far from marginalized, they are bullies even within the Alphabet.
You would hope this message of dont threaten to physically harm would be as anodyne as "do your pants up" after going to the bathroom, and yet here we are :(
I am guessing push back to this will be all over the place from "Yeah, but its ok to punch Nazis" (because you are either with us, or a Nazi)... to "Yeah, but they are committing trans genocide with their words against us so its ok to threaten back"....
Although its pat to say "technology", it is an amplifier. I remember back in the 80s after coming home from a night out, we would have a good laugh yelling all sorts of drunken crap at the TV with Jack Van Impe and Raxella on at 3am. Only now, with Twitter, that actually goes out into public. I think that hostility was always there, just now we see more of it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that any public figure who continues to use Twitter to espouse a view (any view, it really doesn't matter), is at least partially addicted to the adrenaline rush a hate storm provides. I have no comment on what Ms. Atwood had to say, only that she surely knew what vitriol her words would provoke.
I agree with Jen that people shouldn't threaten harm to other people, whether on the internet or in real life (except when I'm on my bike and a driver comes close to killing me - you, sir, deserve a most vicious end), but there is a way to avoid a lot of that:
Leave social media, and keep your views, crap or otherwise, to yourself.
I've never understood the influence that Atwood yields, so I reserve scorn (respectful of course) for the people who think she is insightful or important or relevant or interesting. This reminds me of the only teacher that had any lasting influence on my life. I am a naturally born science geek. I take to math and science on my own with little to no assistance. Give me a book (or now a website), and I can figure how something works on my own. The same cannot be said for English. While I never struggled with the subject, I never exceled or enjoyed it either. In Grade 9, I had a very unconvential Engish teacher whose first day intro was something to the tune of "The curiculum calls for study of Canadian literature. Given that a unique Canadian experience does not exist, Canadian Literature is a construct of out of touch politicians. Instead of reading Margaret Atwood, we will be studying good literature." Good literature included "Catcher in the Rye", "Great Expectations", "Cry the Beloved Country", "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "As I Lay Dying".
Now that TERF's have been segmented, have we finally reached peak identity?
Twitter and Facebooks are cesspools of trolls and have no redeeming value. I am more convinced by the day that real discourse can only occur if the participants are invested. That means pay to play (i.e. paid sites where the business model isn't to encourage strong emotions to attract advertising dollars) and less anonymity.
Margaret Atwood's scorn is a formidable weapon. Look what she did to Stephen Harper over a haircut, and before that, the free trade debate's beaver analogy. Don't mess with Margaret Atwood.
Does anyone else find the comments and threats that come from trans-women (formerly males) to be extremely masculine in their tone and choice of language. I've not heard many woman in my life call another woman a cunt or bitch or hag. And even more rarely, have I heard a woman threaten the life of another person. On the other hand, this is pretty typical and strong emotionally charged language from a sex of human being incapable of emotional nuance-- aka males. How much of this trans-activism is real misogyny masquerading as progress? The most extreme elements of that end of the debate increasingly feel to me more and more like another attempt for insecure males to dominate female spaces and female-only issues. The language is extremely indicative of this to me.
Your thesis about violence and harrassment is absolutely true. BUT:
"Of course threats of violence made against TERFs are probably not as common" is absolutely false. 'TERF' is no longer a neutral descriptor, but an active term of abuse regularly used to attack vulnerable detransitioners who try to tell their stories; lesbians who assert that by definition they are same-*sex* attracted; and by trans women like Jessica Trill and Debbie Hayton who identify as transsexual. (Transwomen happy with their male bodies and penises attack them for "centring their vaginas.") Even rejecting the term "uterus-haver" can get a woman denounced as a "TERF" who should "die in a grease fire" or get "punched in the face."
Trans rights are in our civil and human rights codes, and hate speech legslation. (As they should be.) The radical activists who attack Atwood, Rowling and anyone who believes in women's sex-based rights radiate toxic masculinity. Far from marginalized, they are bullies even within the Alphabet.
You would hope this message of dont threaten to physically harm would be as anodyne as "do your pants up" after going to the bathroom, and yet here we are :(
I am guessing push back to this will be all over the place from "Yeah, but its ok to punch Nazis" (because you are either with us, or a Nazi)... to "Yeah, but they are committing trans genocide with their words against us so its ok to threaten back"....
Although its pat to say "technology", it is an amplifier. I remember back in the 80s after coming home from a night out, we would have a good laugh yelling all sorts of drunken crap at the TV with Jack Van Impe and Raxella on at 3am. Only now, with Twitter, that actually goes out into public. I think that hostility was always there, just now we see more of it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that any public figure who continues to use Twitter to espouse a view (any view, it really doesn't matter), is at least partially addicted to the adrenaline rush a hate storm provides. I have no comment on what Ms. Atwood had to say, only that she surely knew what vitriol her words would provoke.
I agree with Jen that people shouldn't threaten harm to other people, whether on the internet or in real life (except when I'm on my bike and a driver comes close to killing me - you, sir, deserve a most vicious end), but there is a way to avoid a lot of that:
Leave social media, and keep your views, crap or otherwise, to yourself.
I've never understood the influence that Atwood yields, so I reserve scorn (respectful of course) for the people who think she is insightful or important or relevant or interesting. This reminds me of the only teacher that had any lasting influence on my life. I am a naturally born science geek. I take to math and science on my own with little to no assistance. Give me a book (or now a website), and I can figure how something works on my own. The same cannot be said for English. While I never struggled with the subject, I never exceled or enjoyed it either. In Grade 9, I had a very unconvential Engish teacher whose first day intro was something to the tune of "The curiculum calls for study of Canadian literature. Given that a unique Canadian experience does not exist, Canadian Literature is a construct of out of touch politicians. Instead of reading Margaret Atwood, we will be studying good literature." Good literature included "Catcher in the Rye", "Great Expectations", "Cry the Beloved Country", "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "As I Lay Dying".
Now that TERF's have been segmented, have we finally reached peak identity?
Twitter and Facebooks are cesspools of trolls and have no redeeming value. I am more convinced by the day that real discourse can only occur if the participants are invested. That means pay to play (i.e. paid sites where the business model isn't to encourage strong emotions to attract advertising dollars) and less anonymity.
Why do I have the unpleasant feeling that the 2020s are resembling the 1920s, and that didn't end well?
'Asshole' is an equal opportunity IMO. We all have one and we can all be one.
Margaret Atwood's scorn is a formidable weapon. Look what she did to Stephen Harper over a haircut, and before that, the free trade debate's beaver analogy. Don't mess with Margaret Atwood.