my thoughts on Twitter, tagging, subtweeting, & blocking

I joined Twitter back in 2011 and, for the most part, I've appreciated the experience – it is the social media platform that I spend the most time on. It's a great place for me to get the word out about my writings and music, and to find/follow/read other people's work. But over the last few years, Twitter has become far more difficult to navigate.

For me personally, the primary reason has been the anti-transgender backlash we've been living through the last few years. Not that long ago, trans people were not in the public eye so much, and while trans-haters definitely existed online, they were not very organized. But nowadays, they are far more vocal and coordinated in their efforts. Often they will swarm transgender people's (and allies') feeds expressing hatred and misinformation. Increasingly, they've resorted to mass reporting to get trans people suspended from the platform for relatively benign things.

Then there are the usual aspects of Twitter that most of us have engaged in at one time or another – e.g., quote-tweeting articles & tweets that we disagree with (thus enabling/encouraging our followers to comment upon them as well); tagging/@-ing other people into conversations that they'd rather not be a part of. While not always done in a mean-spirited manner, these things can also make Twitter somewhat inhospitable at times.

As a writer, I am quite used to being criticized. And I understand that social media is now the new public forum where ideas will be shared and debated. While I am always open to listening to sincere constructive criticism, far more often than not, the negative comments I receive on Twitter these days are either thinly veiled (if at all) attempts to smear or dismiss transgender people and perspectives, or more general complaints about "liberals," "feminists," "SJWs," and the like. In some cases, these individuals may simply be "letting off steam" or "getting something off their chest," but the end result (whether intended or not) is that other people who are fundamentally opposed to my perspective & existence will likely find that comment and flood my feed, thus creating a hostile environment for both me and my followers.

So long story short, I have become very liberal with blocking accounts.

Call-Out Culture, Identity Politics, Political Correctness, and Social Justice Activism: essays and a new lecture

I have written extensively about these interrelated and highly debated topics. In this post, I compile these essays (see links below), and share the description for a brand new lecture I have prepared on this subject (and which summarizes my perspective on these matters). If you are potentially interested in having me present this talk at your college, conference, or other event, please visit my booking page for more details.

THE TALK

A Social Justice Activist's Perspective on Call-Out Culture, Identity Politics, and Political Correctness
Over the last century, social justice activism has played a crucial role in challenging prejudice and promoting equity for women, people of color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups. While most of us profess support for these past accomplishments, we may nevertheless resist newer expressions of social justice activism, or dismiss them as examples of “call-out culture,” “identity politics,” or “political correctness” run amok. In this talk, author and activist Julia Serano addresses this discrepancy. Julia has written (particularly in her books Excluded and Outspoken) about how social justice movements sometimes become too exclusive, inflexible, or counterproductive -- tendencies that likely contribute to resistance toward contemporary activism, and for which Julia has suggested potential remedies. Julia also demonstrates how the general public's lack of awareness about how prejudice and discrimination actually work, and how activists can effectively counter them, is a major factor driving this resistance. Generating more light than heat, and remaining accessible to activists and non-activists alike, Julia will discuss the purpose of social justice activism and its limitations. 

Balancing activism, "free speech" & "call-out culture"

Last week, I published an essay called Refusing to Tolerate Intolerance, which makes the case that we must challenge and refuse to tolerate acts that are intended to dehumanize, intimidate, and silence minority/marginalized groups. I also explain why those who claim that we *should* tolerate said acts because of "free speech" 1) are misapplying the concept, 2) do not understand how marginalization actually works, 3) are behaving hypocritically, or 4) some combination thereof.

At the end of the piece, I mentioned that I am currently working on a follow up to that essay: “Hate Speech versus Call-Out Culture.” I have written about “call-out culture” at great length in the past, specifically in my second book Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive (shown to the right).

To the best of my knowledge, “call-out culture” is a term that originated within intra-activist discourses to describe expressions of activism that seemed misguided or unduly harsh to other activists. Back in the late zeros/aughts and early tens/teens, those of us who discussed this problem recognized that activism was crucial and that some call-outs are indeed necessary, and we were trying to balance that need with the fact that sometimes call-outs (in certain cases and contexts) can do more harm than good. Unfortunately, the phrase has since been appropriated by non-activists as a pejorative to smear any expression of activism that they dislike or disagree with.

Lies about Transgender People and the Vagina Monologues

This is one in a series of essays exposing falsehoods forwarded by feminists who are suspicious of or antagonistic toward transgender people. This series includes Debunking “Trans Women Are Not Women” Arguments and my forthcoming essay Transgender People and “Biological Sex” Myths. If you appreciate this work, please consider supporting me on Patreon.

These days, almost every anti-transgender hit-piece written from a feminist perspective will mention an incident that occurred in 2015, in which Mount Holyoke College canceled a scheduled performance of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues for not being inclusive of transgender people. By citing this instance out of context, these writers attempt to assert or imply that:

1) all trans people must want to censor The Vagina Monologues.
2) more sinisterly, trans people are trying to stop women from talking about their vaginas.
3) this is yet another example of why feminism and trans activism are inherently incompatible.

However, this framing purposefully ignores two crucial factors.

regarding that transracial/transgender Hypatia article & accusations of "witch hunts"

As some of you may know by now, about a month or so ago, the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia published an article by Rachel Tuvel called "In Defense of Transracialism." I have not read the article (it is behind a paywall), but by all accounts it draws parallels between "transracial" and transgender, and makes the case that, if we accept the latter, then we should accept the former.

Tuvel's article was widely critiqued by academics (and to a lesser degree, activists) with knowledge of the fields of critical race theory and transgender studies for reasons explained here by Shannon Winnubst (who is one of the co-authors/signers of an open letter to Hypatia asking the journal to retract the paper). In response to the letter, Hypatia apologized for publishing it (although, as of the time I write this, they have not retracted it). Hypatia apologized (whereas other journals likely would not have) because of its dedication to "pluralist feminist inquiry" and because the journal views itself as "an important site for the publication of scholarship long-considered marginal in philosophy." As Trans Lady Academic points out, the response stemmed from "commitments that several editors at Hypatia itself had laid out to avoiding the exploitative and anthropological gaze."

on Milo, the limits of free speech, and who gets thrown under the bus

I recently published an essay on Medium called Free Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance. In that piece, as well as in a follow up essay I published yesterday morning, I touched upon recent debates regarding whether Milo Yiannopoulos should be granted a platform to speak at universities and other high profile venues. I argued that Yiannopoulos has a long history of inciting hatred and harassment campaigns toward women, people of color, trans folks, immigrants, and other marginalized groups. I invoked Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance" to make the case that we should not tolerate people (such as Yiannopoulos) who attempt to use their "free speech" in order to suppress and silence others.

While many people (especially those who have witnessed the real harm Yiannopoulos has caused over the last several years) agree with this position, others have taken a free speech absolutist stance that can be paraphrased as follows: "Yiannopoulos may say horrible things that I don't agree with, but I support colleges and others who offer him a platform to speak (and you should too!) because FREE SPEECH." (or something like that.)

But today, we learned the true hypocrisy of the "let Milo speak because FREE SPEECH" crowd. Yesterday, audio/video clips surfaced wherein Yiannopoulos suggests that teenage boys are old enough to consent to sex with older men. In the wake of that revelation, the American Conservative Union, who had previously invited Yiannopoulos to speak at their upcoming CPAC conference, rescinded that invitation. Simon & Schuster, who had been vigorously defending its decision to sign Yiannopoulos to a huge $250,000 book deal, announced that it was canceling that deal. Even employees at the alt-right/white nationalist news outlet Breitbart (where Yiannopoulos is a senior editor) have threatened to quit if he is not fired.

In other words, the same people who were arguing for, or even championing, Yiannopoulos's FREE SPEECH a few days ago, are now disassociating themselves from him. They are, in effect, "no platforming" him.