tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432122252544693588.post7314048441486743574..comments2023-05-28T23:41:17.406-07:00Comments on Whipping Girl: Final thoughts on that Michelle Goldberg article, faux journalism, and recognizing bias-juliahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06703465310869693798noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432122252544693588.post-68776425006034028782014-08-09T11:00:02.796-07:002014-08-09T11:00:02.796-07:00I hear your general point - I've been doing tr...I hear your general point - I've been doing trans activism since 2002, well before "transgender tipping points," back when the overwhelming majority of people were either completely uninformed or had hostile views of trans people. I believe that trans people exist and we should be treated with respect, regardless of whether that is a popular opinion then or now.<br /><br />What this particular piece is about journalism, where intentionally omitting certain facts or disproportionately reporting certain views can lead to a misrepresentation of reality - I believe this to be a bad thing. And while I believe what I believe regardless of public opinion, I think that persuading public opinion (e.g., getting more people to treat trans people with respect) is important - it is a big part of why we do activism.-juliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06703465310869693798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432122252544693588.post-34716848840504064322014-08-09T02:04:20.824-07:002014-08-09T02:04:20.824-07:00You're correct as to this situation, but you&#...You're correct as to this situation, but you've walked into quite an unpleasant trap by relying so much on majority opinions, and the presentation thereof, to bolster your arguments. <br /><br />For example, if "the majority" of "reformed transgender people" believe that their transitions were toxic to society at large, does that speak at all as to the deeper issues of morality and freedom of choice? Not at all--even if 99.9% of such a community self-identifies as having been toxic. <br /><br />Ergo majorities should not be used to make your case, even when they help your case. The majority of voters in, oh, 1820 felt that women and non-whites shouldn't vote. The majority of slaves, when questioned by a gentleman journalist their master brought to the plantation to interview them, would also agree (mindful of the purse and the whip) that non-whites shouldn't have the vote. <br /><br />A majority opinion, at whatever point in time and space, proves nothing other than that that's the way people answered a question or felt. Majority opinions are certainly not a good base point for transsexuals at many points during human history. <br /><br />It can be intimidating to argue against people who are always citing majorities, but you should still stick to principles of truth and justice. It will serve everyone better in the long run--and it will also stop lending tacit support to the idea that the larger bandwagon should triumph. It truly is irrelevant to issues of right and wrong. It only bolsters future prejudices to argue in terms of majorities, because you're supporting the idea of consensus-by-numbers, which is a sword that can easily stab a different group at a different time. High Arkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14723123626955733759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432122252544693588.post-9188311764873543722014-08-08T19:12:07.535-07:002014-08-08T19:12:07.535-07:00I'm sorry this happened. You deserve better. S...I'm sorry this happened. You deserve better. Stay strong.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01746928405165242364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432122252544693588.post-29478122552774115952014-08-08T17:25:33.726-07:002014-08-08T17:25:33.726-07:00This comment was deleted because it was a delibera...This comment was deleted because it was a deliberately inflammatory and invalidating in numerous ways, and I don't accept those on my personal blog - feel free to post those elsewhere.<br /><br />btw, they were a TERF who claimed that TERF is a slur, which is completely ridiculous. As I say in my Advocate piece:<br /><br />'Some TERFs claim that “TERF” is a slur — Goldberg highlights this in her article but never explains the reasoning behind it. From their point of view (which they have shared with me via their unprovoked attacks on me on Twitter), they should be referred to as MERFs — i.e., Man-Exclusive Radical Feminists—because they reject trans women (who they see as “men”) but not trans men (who they view as misguided “women” who have been brainwashed by patriarchal and transgender agendas). Needless to say, an overwhelming majority of transgender people reject this framing of the issue. And there is nothing inherently demeaning about referring to people who exclude transgender people and issues from their movement as “trans-exclusive.” This is why I use the acronym “TERF” throughout this piece.'<br /><br />For a while, trans activists were simply complaining about "radfems," but then some radfems who are *actually* pro-trans (all trans people - trans women, trans men, and non-binary folks), some of who are trans women themselves, objected. Hence the name TERF. <br /><br />Two more things: you don't get to call yourself "pro-trans" if you invalidate trans women's lived experiences - PERIOD. Second, if you think people *use* TERF as a slur simply because they they sound "angry" when they use it, that's probably because they are simply pissed off that you are invalidating them and/or people they respect.-juliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06703465310869693798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432122252544693588.post-47233776677051448422014-08-08T13:46:27.999-07:002014-08-08T13:46:27.999-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com