
This Is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like - ALee
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/transracialism-article-controversy.html
======
Jun8
The GenderTrender article has more details
([https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/philosophys-e...](https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/philosophys-
end-the-defamation-of-rebecca-tuvel/)). tl; dr: her article analyzes the
similarities of the cases of Caitlyn Jenner (transgender) and Rachel Dolezal
(transracial,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal)).

I'll just paste the following part:

Heterosexual white female Nora Berenstain of the University of Texas accused
Tuvel of being a violent perpetrator:

“Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her
essay. She deadnames a trans woman [Bruce Jenner]. She uses the term
“transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male
genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the
objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans
individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful
transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male
privilege.”

Words fail me.

~~~
senectus1
wait... transRACIAL?!?

how is that a thing?

~~~
devrandomguy
This was common back when I was in high school. A bunch of us kids convinced
ourselves that we were straight outta Compton. It was so wack, but we had lots
fun of breakdancing and threatening to bust a cap in each other. This was
before Columbine, and in Canada. The accent was hard for us to get right.

So, now it's called transracial, and we're no longer allowed to dis it? Sure,
ok, whatever.

------
evangelista
I used to sort of laugh at this kind of thing. Ok, people who believe weird
things are fighting with each other.

Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender." What
does that even mean? There are two genders. Sometimes, people from one gender
decide to identify with another gender. Fine. Men who believe they are women
can go in the women's room and vice versa. No need to invent the concept of
"all gender."

So now I no longer find this funny. I read about transracialism and now I am
worried this is also going to become mainstream and I am going to get publicly
persecuted for questioning that as well.

America has lost it's mind. Really.

When do we actually start pushing back against this and begin saying: "No, you
can't be transracial, that is a dumb idea and this is an idiotic thing to even
entertain and I am not going to allow you to pretend this is real science."

Now would be good.

~~~
gizmo686
>Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender." What
does that even mean?

Gender neutral? To make a historical comparison, consider race segregated
bathrooms. At one time we had "white" bathrooms and "colored" bathrooms. Now
we just have "all race" bathrooms. There are some people who think we should
do the same with gender discrimination. Some (myself included) say we should
do this even if not for transfolk.

California's bill (as I understand it) does not go nearly this far. Instead,
it only requires that all single-occupancy bathrooms be gender neutral; and I
have yet to meet a single person who even pretends to understand why he have
gendered single occupancy bathrooms.

~~~
extra88
> I have yet to meet a single person who even pretends to understand why he
> have gendered single occupancy bathrooms.

If there's space for two single-occupancy bathrooms, I think most people
prefer it. Women don't like putting the seat down and think pee on the floor
is pure carelessness. Men don't like putting the seat down and are grossed out
by period blood. If it means the bathroom has a urinal, even if single-
occupancy, I think most men would prefer that.

~~~
tarboreus
This is overstated. Most people would prefer the optionality of using more
bathrooms, and anecdotally I've noticed people ignoring gender designations on
single-occupancy bathrooms.

------
Banthum
This seems like one of those cases where the amount of heat coming off the
subject is so large relative to the actual event, and the difference in
arguments so narrow, that there must be some deeper unspoken motivation.

I don't believe the people making these arguments against Tuvel have chosen
their position _because_ of those arguments. I think there is some other
political/power-oriented motivation, and the arguments are used
instrumentally.

Any thoughts on what that source motivation might be? I have some notions but
I don't know this sphere in detail.

\---

Just speculating, one might think the academics want to avoid any change that
would weaken the power the social justice race-guilt narrative has to control
white men. They're afraid that if transracialism becomes accepted, whites will
identify as non-whites to claim their privileges (e.g. affirmative action,
argumentative deference, etc).

Just imagine millions of white men identifying as mixed-race and then everyone
having to accept that on pain of being called racists or transracialphobic.
That's a nightmare scenario for the social justice crowd because it takes away
their main permanent advantage in the culture wars: the ability to call people
racist.

But... that would seemingly also apply to transgenderism. So why the
difference?

Maybe transgenderism isn't considered a threat because identifying as a woman
is too much of a jump for a normal man. A dude doesn't want to act like a
woman, even if it helps him get hired at Intel. It would ruin his status and
sexual appeal. You have to dress like a woman, and maybe even take hormones.
It's just too weird. But simply identifying as mixed-race would be much easier
for a man to do without changing any behavior or losing status. (Heck, I've
met lots of white->black quasi-transracial kids from the suburbs who love
gangsta rap... They're halfway there already.)

At the same time, the academics may like transgenderism because it helps to
weaken the public belief in traditional gender roles. It's perfect social
constructionism: If everyone can be a man/woman, man/woman have no roles, no
characteristics, nothing. Masculine and feminine become no more than fashion
statements. Transracialism lacks this "advantage" because the notion of racial
social roles was already rightly destroyed a long time ago.

This feels like a rough thesis though.

------
RichardHeart
I would love to live in a world where what things did mattered much more than
what they were called. A rose by another name does smell as sweet.

------
grappler
Maybe provoking a controversy like this is an indicator that a paper in this
part of academia has succeeded.

They aren't pursuing economic value or understanding of nature; they're
examining the social world we're living in. If the author had missed her
target, the paper would likely get no attention. Looking back at history,
anybody who made claims that were ahead of their time would likely be proud to
be able to say, “I caused an uproar when I said it”.

------
Danihan
What happened to academic philosophy lol.

