Too many far-right talking point for me to make it through, with claims such as that a "a vocal minority of extremists" are suppressing white het cis men. He also feels it's deeply unfair that...
Too many far-right talking point for me to make it through, with claims such as that a "a vocal minority of extremists" are suppressing white het cis men. He also feels it's deeply unfair that Richard Dawkins is criticized for saying:
Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.
Which is just classic transphobia, do I really need to point that out?
There's an additional line about an org being forced or pressured into "denying the reality of biological sex" or some such. This is real "LGB without the T" language. Found it
There's an additional line about an org being forced or pressured into "denying the reality of biological sex" or some such.
This is real "LGB without the T" language.
Found it
Even SSSS (the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) eventually succumbed to the dogma. They were pressured into releasing embarrassing statements denying biological sex, reinforcing the irrational worldview of CSJ and undermining their scientific mission.
The website also has some rather questionable articles about trans people, one of them featuring this cartoon: https://www.queermajority.com/cartoons/transgander Really, how many times can they...
This might be a controversial article, but it resonated with something I've felt myself. When I was in college I remember there being a lot of people who joined religious groups to find their...
This might be a controversial article, but it resonated with something I've felt myself.
When I was in college I remember there being a lot of people who joined religious groups to find their place in a new environment. Lots of them would go around and try to start conversations about Jesus with people on campus, since a college campus with tons of 18-22 year olds was ripe with potential converts. Since I was brown skinned many of them honed in on me as someone who probably wasn't already Christian.
Now that I'm older and reflect back on that period of my life, I feel some sort of parallel between the conversations I had back then and how it feels when I get involved in conversations with activists now.
I dont know if I go so far as to describe it as "cult" like, but I do feel some degree of alienation from cause-driven people. Even though I'm on lots of axes of diversity it always feels like none of this ever really has anything to do with me, despite how much conversation seems to focus around marginalized groups. It's always about something above or beyond me that I just need to agree to go along with. I dont feel involved, I just feel liable. Like I'm getting blamed for something totally beyond me that I am getting saddled with guilt for. Which is similar to how it felt when people would try to talk to me about Jesus, and how I was already guilty in the eyes of people who just met me.
Just wanted to hear if other people felt similarly or differently.
this is something I don't like about social justice movements for sure, the weird obsession with self-flagellation. This is something I'm not convinced the article is actually interested in...
Like I'm getting blamed for something totally beyond me that I am getting saddled with guilt for.
this is something I don't like about social justice movements for sure, the weird obsession with self-flagellation. This is something I'm not convinced the article is actually interested in discussing in good faith considering some of the people being quoted here and the things they are saying:
Political Theory Professor Joshua Mitchell has argued that the boundaries between politics and religion are breaking down, and that CSJ has strong structural parallels with Christianity. Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, in his book Woke Inc. (2021), wrote that CSJ beliefs arguably “meet the legal definition of a religion” and thus employers would be well-advised not to force these views upon their employees.
'Woke Inc.'? Really?
employees like former Google engineer James Damore and even executives like former Roivant CEO Vivek Ramaswamy are forced out of corporations, and in the nonprofit world I’ve seen the same play out over and over again — especially in progressive spaces like LGBT activism.
James Damore? what is this, 2018?
By contrast, Critical Social Justice, in the name of Neo-Marxist “equity” (equal outcomes), advocates for intentional systemic discrimination against historically “oppressive” groups. This is because you cannot have that kind of “equity” without violating the liberal principle of equality. The most informed and honest of its adherents will admit this if pressed.
This is such actual nonsense I have no idea how you can come to this conclusion without having some really weird opinions about equality and systemic oppression.
Are you sure this is an article written in good faith?
Worth nothing is that Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the people being quoted by this essay's author, is a Republican, Trump admiring, self-described "American nationalist, anti-woke", abortion opposing,...
Are you sure this is an article written in good faith?
Worth nothing is that Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the people being quoted by this essay's author, is a Republican, Trump admiring, self-described "American nationalist, anti-woke", abortion opposing, 2024 Presidential candidate with pretty concerning views about LGBT people too.
So the author, who is the Editor-In-Chief of this supposedly bisexual advocacy non-profit magazine, quoting such a person genuinely makes me question what's going on here, and makes me greatly suspect the Queer Majority (and the Bi Foundation who run it) might be yet another right-wing funded, secretly anti-trans astroturfing org like the LGB Alliance.
Terms that fall under the bi umbrella include pansexual (attraction to all genders, with a political emphasis on trans and non-binary gender identities)
I also dislike the use of MLK as a comparison point. MLK absolutely thought that the white moderate who stayed silent about oppression was the problem. He didn't think we shouldn't say that...
I also dislike the use of MLK as a comparison point. MLK absolutely thought that the white moderate who stayed silent about oppression was the problem. He didn't think we shouldn't say that because it's judging people by the color of their skin. Quoting just that one line is another red flag for me.
I totallt understand that especially in college settings, people can get overzealous about a passion for social justice. However short of an actual cult, which I'm sure has happened, I think the comparison is poor. I won't pretend to know if the speeches at the event were worthwhile but I agree that the whole thing leaves me questioning the author.
No, President Obama would not have approved. He is a liberal, like me, who shares Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision of treating people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin — or any other immutable trait.
For most of this article kind of felt like I was watching a kid pass through a familiar phase. A lot of it resonated with my experience rejecting faith after Catholic school. It takes a while to...
For most of this article kind of felt like I was watching a kid pass through a familiar phase. A lot of it resonated with my experience rejecting faith after Catholic school. It takes a while to build your own value system when your upbringing fails to give you a decent one, and I'm very empathetic towards that.
But then I hit quotes by Vivek Ramaswamy as if he's a credible source for anything. This is very lazy thinking at best.
This is a classic conservative tactic, start out by saying some reasonable things that everyone can agree with and find common ground with and then go off the fucking rails. To nick a quote...
This is a classic conservative tactic, start out by saying some reasonable things that everyone can agree with and find common ground with and then go off the fucking rails.
To nick a quote DefinitelyNotAFae found from the article:
Even SSSS (the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) eventually succumbed to the dogma. They were pressured into releasing embarrassing statements denying biological sex, reinforcing the irrational worldview of CSJ and undermining their scientific mission.
Nobody outside of lala land thinks that sex/gender distinctions or sex/gender as a spectrum are 'irrational' or somehow related to 'critical social justice.' What a crock of shit. Might as well say the quiet part loud and whine about drag queens instead of hiding behind such insipid couched language.
It may well be an article "written in bad faith". I dont know this person or their intentions. But I still feel there is some small part of it that I can identify with, which I never feel like I...
It may well be an article "written in bad faith". I dont know this person or their intentions. But I still feel there is some small part of it that I can identify with, which I never feel like I can talk about with others because of this idea . Even if the article isn't actually interested in it, it still matters to me.
If there are more credible people who can be trusted to speak or write in good faith, then I would try listening to them and hearing what they say. But I don't know who that would be.
I got my start with Ibram X. Kendi (yes, I understand he is controversial these days) and Ijeoma Oluo. I also got my start by listening to, and engaging with, my friends on topics related to their...
I got my start with Ibram X. Kendi (yes, I understand he is controversial these days) and Ijeoma Oluo. I also got my start by listening to, and engaging with, my friends on topics related to their lived experience.
I'm a cis white dude, raised in a pretty-wealthy household in a rural and mostly-white corner of the US. I came out of my adolescence with a lot of biases that I wasn't aware I had. The fact that these biases have come to light is not an "attack" on my person; it's simply a facet of reality.
The fact that the author of this article insists that science and math, and Enlightenment-era philosophy from centuries ago, are the only paths to truth and justice ... well, to be blunt - it reeks of entitled white guy-ism. And I say this as an entitled white guy with a strong background in science and math.
That's the problem and why you get people who won't listen to people discuss that aspect. Most of the time when you do... you realize they actually do have an agenda. So it's really hard to tell...
That's the problem and why you get people who won't listen to people discuss that aspect. Most of the time when you do... you realize they actually do have an agenda. So it's really hard to tell when some one is talking good faith and when some one is once again trying to just subtly press an agenda (The right has gotten very good at this). I admit this article took a while before I started thinking something was off (I think when he started talking "Reverse racism without using the reverse part so he wasn't as obvious) but that's always the way. Listen to them enough and they'll slowly verge you over to trying to think the whole thing is "reverse racism" and trying to discount the whole thing as just a cult.
I mean I didn't necessarily agree with him fully before but I did think maybe he really did want to discuss when people get overzealous. But little by little it seemed more than it was another article trying to look reasonable that really was just pushing its own agenda.
I cannot speak to your experience but getting through the "guilt" phase of anti-racism, intersectional anti-oppression, or SJ whatever people want to call it, was critical for me. It is not my...
I cannot speak to your experience but getting through the "guilt" phase of anti-racism, intersectional anti-oppression, or SJ whatever people want to call it, was critical for me.
It is not my fault what others have done in the past. But it is a fact that I've benefited from that past inequity. It is a fact that current inequity is a result of that past inequity. And for me, it's a moral obligation to both try to improve myself and improve the world.
Ironically though I'm not religious anymore, I consider myself an unwilling agnostic, I grew up Catholic. And to me, there is nothing more in line with the actual theology of Christianity than changing society to make it more just. I was however heavily influenced by liberation theology and Jesuits in general prior to losing my faith.
And when I say improve, to be clear, I don't mean indoctrination. I mean a society where we see each other as human, we help those who need it as a society, and that charity comes from doing what is right. That we treat others as we would be, as they would be treated. That we do as we wilt as long as it harms none. And that one person's religion, race, gender, orientation, addiction, language, health, body size, etc. does not impact their inclusion into that "human" category.
And until we rip down the inequitable systems that exist, that can probably never happen, but I refuse to stop trying in the meantime. And critical race theory, and queer theory, and all of those "critical social justice" things have helped me be better, not worse.
I just wish I could exist in the world without being expected to be better all the time. I want something in the world outside myself to realize that I have good qualities the way I am. But only I...
I just wish I could exist in the world without being expected to be better all the time. I want something in the world outside myself to realize that I have good qualities the way I am. But only I see those good parts of me. Everyone else takes those parts for granted and are only interested in the parts of me they want to change. Even in the places that are about acceptance, there is always some more marginalized or more oppressed group that's more important, so I have to make my life about fixing things for their benefit.
I understand that I'm privileged. I understand that I have the benefit of not having or needing anyone in my life anymore. I know I can just keep staying in isolation, and nobody really needs to bend just to accommodate me.
But it was still nice to feel that the person who wrote this actually felt the same as me about something, without me having to change to agree with them. I see that other people are taking issue with some of the other stuff said in the piece that I dont really agree with, but it was nice having that one thing in common.
I can see the point you're making, and I want to make sure you understand - others do see those good parts. It's far easier for random strangers on the street to make critical comments on...
I can see the point you're making, and I want to make sure you understand - others do see those good parts. It's far easier for random strangers on the street to make critical comments on perceived flaws than it is for them to see the "good stuff".
I just wish I could exist in the world without being expected to be better all the time.
It is my belief that you (the "royal" you, and not Grayscail-you) should always expect yourself to be better. I don't want to hit a point of stagnation in my life; I want to be better tomorrow than I am today - not in pursuit of perfection or anything, but just in terms of being the "best" I can be. I have kids who are going to have a really, really hard time in the world we've left them; climate change and the impending refugee crisis, the ongoing mass extinction, the increasing grip of fascism on US politics, the fact that we live in a nation led by octogenarians ... I could go on.
There's a lot I can't control or fix by myself, but at the very least I can be the best dad, the best husband, the best friend I can possibly be. And that drive is born not just of expecting, but of molding myself to be better all the time.
Hey so I want to give you credit that it is ok to just exist in the world. For me that driving to be better is an internal motivation not an external imperative. I think other people can see the...
Hey so I want to give you credit that it is ok to just exist in the world. For me that driving to be better is an internal motivation not an external imperative.
I think other people can see the good parts of you too. It's possible your perspective on that is warped by other factors, but generally we appreciate the things we see in others.
And I get finding a piece of agreement in a text that contains a lot of other things you don't agree with. I just worry that this touch of agreement is sort of the thread that pulls apart the sweater. I don't want you to fall into the pool of some of the harmful rhetoric because you feel alienated and find that point of agreement there.
We're both simultaneously good enough and imperfect.
I totally agree with the intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation thing. There are parts of me that I realize could be different, and I want to work on those things in my own time. I just would prefer...
I totally agree with the intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation thing. There are parts of me that I realize could be different, and I want to work on those things in my own time. I just would prefer for others to not impose their ideas of what needs to change onto me.
It's hard to avoid straying into that territory when lots of modern politics have become "theories of everything", where certain observations of problems in the world seep into every aspect of life. So any given thing could lead into a discussion of how the entire world needs to be fundamentally reorganized, and that in turn means every person needs to fundamentally reorient themselves around that transformation.
It becomes increasingly difficult to keep my internal world and intrinsic motivations that are purely my own from the external world and extrinsic motivations that everyone weighs in on.
I dont want to fall into an alt right rabbit hole and become a Neo nazi or anything, so I get why the article got removed. I just haven't found much writing that resonates with my ideals of self determination that doesn't also end up being tied to some of that far right stuff.
You have the choice not to fall into that rabbit hole. I think it's a truth of the world that we can't fully keep our interior lives separate from the world at large. In many ways it can be useful...
You have the choice not to fall into that rabbit hole. I think it's a truth of the world that we can't fully keep our interior lives separate from the world at large. In many ways it can be useful to acknowledge the large systemic problems and continue forward doing what you think is the best. I'm not going to claim to know whether your "best" is "enough". But perhaps you're feeling some cognitive dissonance there of acknowledging you could make some change and also not wanting to. Honestly that's not uncommon. And perhaps you're not feeling dissonance and just want to be left alone. That's nearly impossible in a social world. I hope you have some IRL folks - who you know aren't toxic - you can talk about this with. Professional, family, friend, whichever.
The fact that the author felt compelled to write the term "cisheterophobia" makes me question their intentions. "Biological sex" is not a binary, and I would have hoped that someone whose views...
The fact that the author felt compelled to write the term "cisheterophobia" makes me question their intentions.
I witness outright racism against white people, sexism against men, and cisheterophobia - all coming from the movement that was supposed to be standing for equality and human rights. Even SSSS (the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) eventually succumbed to the dogma. They were pressured into releasing embarrassing statements denying biological sex, reinforcing the irrational worldview of CSJ and undermining their scientific mission.
"Biological sex" is not a binary, and I would have hoped that someone whose views had widened to the extent they claim would include that fact. For someone whose sexuality is strictly non-binary, you'd think they could extend that view towards other aspects of human existence.
Additionally, invoking MLK (and specifically, only his quote about the content of character versus the color of their skin) is never a great look for a white guy.
Just about everything else throughout the article reeks of strawmanning:
Religion, like social justice, is hard to define. [...] Contemporary thinkers have argued in all seriousness that some apparently secular ideologies can be regarded as religions. In Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World (2020), theologian Tara Isabella Burton argues that the "social justice" phenomenon has all the key components of a religion: it provides believers with an all-encompassing worldview, meaning and purpose, clearly defined communal boundaries, and powerful self-actualizing rituals.
They've established their strawman - social justice is a religion. There is no consensus, and the whole reason to establish that argument is to swing the author's previous bludgeon, used against religion, towards social justice instead.
The fact that the author is unironically invoking Vivek Ramaswamy as anything other than a scam artist makes me wonder what their media diet looks like.
I don't want to belabor this reply further, but man ... this article is a hard read, because at very few points is the author actually criticizing social justice. At almost every step, they are criticizing religion, and using a strawman argument to attach social justice movements to it.
EDIT TO ADD:
If you've felt gaslit by people telling you that your concerns are totally misplaced, that cancel culture isn't real (or it's a good thing), or that rioting, looting, and arson in the name of CSJ is justified, you've been in the company of a religious apologist.
Just dropping that here. The author is simply oozing from every pore with right wing talking points, despite their proclaimed politics.
I just want to note that a bisexual who denies trans people's identities is still existing in a very binary sexuality. Even though they're not "picking a side" they are absolutely still complicit...
I just want to note that a bisexual who denies trans people's identities is still existing in a very binary sexuality. Even though they're not "picking a side" they are absolutely still complicit and engaging with sexuality in a binary fashion.
They still think it's a sporting event with only two teams, rather than the Olympics with multiple sports, categories and events, they're just a fan of both teams.
I agree with you, and I appreciate you calling out my imprecise language! It's true, being bisexual in the way that the author is, is still being binary (men -or- women). I just find the...
I agree with you, and I appreciate you calling out my imprecise language!
It's true, being bisexual in the way that the author is, is still being binary (men -or- women). I just find the circumstances of the author's views strange.
They were raised believing that all non-traditional heterosexual relationships were sinful, or perhaps unnatural. As they grew up, they found themselves attracted to "both sexes", and came to realize that the religious heteronormative relationships he once believed to be the "only" right way for people to engage with, were lies.
I find it odd that that's where the evolution in his thought stopped.
It's the contradiction of Log Cabin Republicans and Transphobic queer people. It's one of those incredibly frustrating things to see oppressed people participate in oppression, especially their own
It's the contradiction of Log Cabin Republicans and Transphobic queer people. It's one of those incredibly frustrating things to see oppressed people participate in oppression, especially their own
I appreciate this article and its focus on the value of old school liberalism. My primary issue is I feel it's a bit light on the philosophy and heavy on the testimony. Critical theory is...
I appreciate this article and its focus on the value of old school liberalism. My primary issue is I feel it's a bit light on the philosophy and heavy on the testimony.
It wasn’t Critical Social Justice that liberated me as a bi person. It was Liberal Social Justice.
Critical theory is absolutely overused in my view. Even though post modernists broadly reject grand narratives used to explain everything, some people seem to use post modernist critical theory as some global theory of oppression. For example, a post modernist would reject Marx's explanation of history as a tale of class-based economic oppression and conflict.
That said, it feels like the author is throwing the baby out with the baby out with the bath water in dismissing critical theory whole cloth. I take particular umbrage with how he lazily criticizes critical pedagogy (Wikipedia link) simply by associating it with religious figures.
Critical pedagogy, in fact, was founded upon principles developed by the Catholic socialist Paulo Freire, whose book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968) has been standard reading in many higher education curricula for decades.
That's all well and true, but I'm not such an angry agnostic as to dismiss all philosophy written by religious figures. Clearly the author agrees as he mentions that many enlightenment figures were religious. It's important to be critical in philosophical analysis and actually grapple with the meat of an argument. Steel-manning an argument is better straw-manning.
Critical teachers, therefore, must admit that they are in a position of authority and then demonstrate that authority in their actions in supports of students... [A]s teachers relinquish the authority of truth providers, they assume the mature authority of facilitators of student inquiry and problem-solving. In relation to such teacher authority, students gain their freedom--they gain the ability to become self-directed human beings capable of producing their own knowledge.
— Joe L. Kincheloe, Critical Pedagogy Primer p. 17
The entire point of critical pedagogy is to avoid indoctrination and create strong, independent learners who are self-actualized and question the world! I've known teachers that utilized critical pedagogy to become effective facilitators of student learning, and what a difference it makes when you teach students to learn and teach themselves rather than blindly accept the content of a staid lecture!
Even if the article is a bit heavy-handed, I appreciate the author's intent nevertheless.
I agree about it being more testimonial than philosophical. Too much of it relied on specific examples that aren't necessarily representative of any broader theme. It's like the idea that only a...
I agree about it being more testimonial than philosophical. Too much of it relied on specific examples that aren't necessarily representative of any broader theme.
It's like the idea that only a small percent of the internet is made up of assholes, but those assholes end up making the whole of a website seem like trash, and then people start to believe everyone on the internet is an asshole. Testimonial examples of specific instances where people were toxic tend to paint in broad strokes when probably lots if the people in those groups don't behave like the worst examples.
I've some major issues with the article and I'd rather not see its ilk on Tildes. If I wanted to see conservative whining I'd go back to Reddit. It's one thing to have problems with the social...
I've some major issues with the article and I'd rather not see its ilk on Tildes. If I wanted to see conservative whining I'd go back to Reddit. It's one thing to have problems with the social justice movement in America - I'm not a huge fan myself - but to pin it all on illiberalism is to ignore reality.
Firstly, there's the matter of detail. What exactly are the author's "liberal values"? Considering liberalism's focus on the individual, I would hardly call opening speeches with specifying one's identity as "illiberal"; I dare say it is very liberal to do that. Although he glosses over exactly which identities he dislikes: he was obviously fine when people were bisexual, but where does he draw that line?
He merely expressed concern that some of the more extreme language being used might alienate allies.
What is this extreme language that his friend dislikes? He gives the reader enough detail about the response but glosses over the inciting statement. That feels suspicious to me.
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, in his book Woke Inc. (2021), wrote that CSJ beliefs arguably “meet the legal definition of a religion” and thus employers would be well-advised not to force these views upon their employees.
Vivek Ramaswamy is a far-right politician who thinks Donald Trump should be pardoned, wants to ban abortion in the majority of cases, and thinks transgender people exist in a “deluded and mentally deranged state”. It's nonsense to consider him a source on anything worth writing about.
Even SSSS (the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality) eventually succumbed to the dogma. They were pressured into releasing embarrassing statements denying biological sex, reinforcing the irrational worldview of CSJ and undermining their scientific mission.
Biologist Richard Dawkins, a notorious critic of religion, has come under fire for making similar invidious comparisons in his attempts to defend his own scientific field from related gender essentialism and science denial.
Oh, and the author is using verbatim transphobic buzzwords. Maybe his real issue with the social justice movement is that transgender acceptance has risen in recent years.
The author links to right-wing rubbish like the Daily Mail for sources, he blames all the problems of the movement on "Neo-Marxist equity", and he works classic transphobic phrases into speech. I wonder if the author's problem is caused by the mistaken belief that he's progressive at all.
Too many far-right talking point for me to make it through, with claims such as that a "a vocal minority of extremists" are suppressing white het cis men. He also feels it's deeply unfair that Richard Dawkins is criticized for saying:
Which is just classic transphobia, do I really need to point that out?
There's an additional line about an org being forced or pressured into "denying the reality of biological sex" or some such.
This is real "LGB without the T" language.
Found it
The website also has some rather questionable articles about trans people, one of them featuring this cartoon:
https://www.queermajority.com/cartoons/transgander
Really, how many times can they recycle that attack helicopter joke? Can't they hire some consultant to come up with a new one?
This might be a controversial article, but it resonated with something I've felt myself.
When I was in college I remember there being a lot of people who joined religious groups to find their place in a new environment. Lots of them would go around and try to start conversations about Jesus with people on campus, since a college campus with tons of 18-22 year olds was ripe with potential converts. Since I was brown skinned many of them honed in on me as someone who probably wasn't already Christian.
Now that I'm older and reflect back on that period of my life, I feel some sort of parallel between the conversations I had back then and how it feels when I get involved in conversations with activists now.
I dont know if I go so far as to describe it as "cult" like, but I do feel some degree of alienation from cause-driven people. Even though I'm on lots of axes of diversity it always feels like none of this ever really has anything to do with me, despite how much conversation seems to focus around marginalized groups. It's always about something above or beyond me that I just need to agree to go along with. I dont feel involved, I just feel liable. Like I'm getting blamed for something totally beyond me that I am getting saddled with guilt for. Which is similar to how it felt when people would try to talk to me about Jesus, and how I was already guilty in the eyes of people who just met me.
Just wanted to hear if other people felt similarly or differently.
this is something I don't like about social justice movements for sure, the weird obsession with self-flagellation. This is something I'm not convinced the article is actually interested in discussing in good faith considering some of the people being quoted here and the things they are saying:
'Woke Inc.'? Really?
James Damore? what is this, 2018?
This is such actual nonsense I have no idea how you can come to this conclusion without having some really weird opinions about equality and systemic oppression.
Are you sure this is an article written in good faith?
Worth nothing is that Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the people being quoted by this essay's author, is a Republican, Trump admiring, self-described "American nationalist, anti-woke", abortion opposing, 2024 Presidential candidate with pretty concerning views about LGBT people too.
So the author, who is the Editor-In-Chief of this supposedly bisexual advocacy non-profit magazine, quoting such a person genuinely makes me question what's going on here, and makes me greatly suspect the Queer Majority (and the Bi Foundation who run it) might be yet another right-wing funded, secretly anti-trans astroturfing org like the LGB Alliance.
Edit: The more I dig into this, the more something definitely feels a bit off about the Bi Foundation AKA the American Institute of Bisexuality. From PinkNews: Bisexual institute leader slammed for absurd claim ‘pansexuality gave us conversion therapy’
Edit2: Even more weirdness that might explains some of the orgs unique views:
https://bi.org/en/101/bi-umbrella
Final edit:
https://www.queermajority.com/cartoons/transgander
Yeah, fuck this anti-trans bullshit organization.
I also dislike the use of MLK as a comparison point. MLK absolutely thought that the white moderate who stayed silent about oppression was the problem. He didn't think we shouldn't say that because it's judging people by the color of their skin. Quoting just that one line is another red flag for me.
I totallt understand that especially in college settings, people can get overzealous about a passion for social justice. However short of an actual cult, which I'm sure has happened, I think the comparison is poor. I won't pretend to know if the speeches at the event were worthwhile but I agree that the whole thing leaves me questioning the author.
For most of this article kind of felt like I was watching a kid pass through a familiar phase. A lot of it resonated with my experience rejecting faith after Catholic school. It takes a while to build your own value system when your upbringing fails to give you a decent one, and I'm very empathetic towards that.
But then I hit quotes by Vivek Ramaswamy as if he's a credible source for anything. This is very lazy thinking at best.
This is a classic conservative tactic, start out by saying some reasonable things that everyone can agree with and find common ground with and then go off the fucking rails.
To nick a quote DefinitelyNotAFae found from the article:
Nobody outside of lala land thinks that sex/gender distinctions or sex/gender as a spectrum are 'irrational' or somehow related to 'critical social justice.' What a crock of shit. Might as well say the quiet part loud and whine about drag queens instead of hiding behind such insipid couched language.
It may well be an article "written in bad faith". I dont know this person or their intentions. But I still feel there is some small part of it that I can identify with, which I never feel like I can talk about with others because of this idea . Even if the article isn't actually interested in it, it still matters to me.
If there are more credible people who can be trusted to speak or write in good faith, then I would try listening to them and hearing what they say. But I don't know who that would be.
I got my start with Ibram X. Kendi (yes, I understand he is controversial these days) and Ijeoma Oluo. I also got my start by listening to, and engaging with, my friends on topics related to their lived experience.
I'm a cis white dude, raised in a pretty-wealthy household in a rural and mostly-white corner of the US. I came out of my adolescence with a lot of biases that I wasn't aware I had. The fact that these biases have come to light is not an "attack" on my person; it's simply a facet of reality.
The fact that the author of this article insists that science and math, and Enlightenment-era philosophy from centuries ago, are the only paths to truth and justice ... well, to be blunt - it reeks of entitled white guy-ism. And I say this as an entitled white guy with a strong background in science and math.
That's the problem and why you get people who won't listen to people discuss that aspect. Most of the time when you do... you realize they actually do have an agenda. So it's really hard to tell when some one is talking good faith and when some one is once again trying to just subtly press an agenda (The right has gotten very good at this). I admit this article took a while before I started thinking something was off (I think when he started talking "Reverse racism without using the reverse part so he wasn't as obvious) but that's always the way. Listen to them enough and they'll slowly verge you over to trying to think the whole thing is "reverse racism" and trying to discount the whole thing as just a cult.
I mean I didn't necessarily agree with him fully before but I did think maybe he really did want to discuss when people get overzealous. But little by little it seemed more than it was another article trying to look reasonable that really was just pushing its own agenda.
I cannot speak to your experience but getting through the "guilt" phase of anti-racism, intersectional anti-oppression, or SJ whatever people want to call it, was critical for me.
It is not my fault what others have done in the past. But it is a fact that I've benefited from that past inequity. It is a fact that current inequity is a result of that past inequity. And for me, it's a moral obligation to both try to improve myself and improve the world.
Ironically though I'm not religious anymore, I consider myself an unwilling agnostic, I grew up Catholic. And to me, there is nothing more in line with the actual theology of Christianity than changing society to make it more just. I was however heavily influenced by liberation theology and Jesuits in general prior to losing my faith.
And when I say improve, to be clear, I don't mean indoctrination. I mean a society where we see each other as human, we help those who need it as a society, and that charity comes from doing what is right. That we treat others as we would be, as they would be treated. That we do as we wilt as long as it harms none. And that one person's religion, race, gender, orientation, addiction, language, health, body size, etc. does not impact their inclusion into that "human" category.
And until we rip down the inequitable systems that exist, that can probably never happen, but I refuse to stop trying in the meantime. And critical race theory, and queer theory, and all of those "critical social justice" things have helped me be better, not worse.
I just wish I could exist in the world without being expected to be better all the time. I want something in the world outside myself to realize that I have good qualities the way I am. But only I see those good parts of me. Everyone else takes those parts for granted and are only interested in the parts of me they want to change. Even in the places that are about acceptance, there is always some more marginalized or more oppressed group that's more important, so I have to make my life about fixing things for their benefit.
I understand that I'm privileged. I understand that I have the benefit of not having or needing anyone in my life anymore. I know I can just keep staying in isolation, and nobody really needs to bend just to accommodate me.
But it was still nice to feel that the person who wrote this actually felt the same as me about something, without me having to change to agree with them. I see that other people are taking issue with some of the other stuff said in the piece that I dont really agree with, but it was nice having that one thing in common.
I can see the point you're making, and I want to make sure you understand - others do see those good parts. It's far easier for random strangers on the street to make critical comments on perceived flaws than it is for them to see the "good stuff".
It is my belief that you (the "royal" you, and not Grayscail-you) should always expect yourself to be better. I don't want to hit a point of stagnation in my life; I want to be better tomorrow than I am today - not in pursuit of perfection or anything, but just in terms of being the "best" I can be. I have kids who are going to have a really, really hard time in the world we've left them; climate change and the impending refugee crisis, the ongoing mass extinction, the increasing grip of fascism on US politics, the fact that we live in a nation led by octogenarians ... I could go on.
There's a lot I can't control or fix by myself, but at the very least I can be the best dad, the best husband, the best friend I can possibly be. And that drive is born not just of expecting, but of molding myself to be better all the time.
Hey so I want to give you credit that it is ok to just exist in the world. For me that driving to be better is an internal motivation not an external imperative.
I think other people can see the good parts of you too. It's possible your perspective on that is warped by other factors, but generally we appreciate the things we see in others.
And I get finding a piece of agreement in a text that contains a lot of other things you don't agree with. I just worry that this touch of agreement is sort of the thread that pulls apart the sweater. I don't want you to fall into the pool of some of the harmful rhetoric because you feel alienated and find that point of agreement there.
We're both simultaneously good enough and imperfect.
I totally agree with the intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation thing. There are parts of me that I realize could be different, and I want to work on those things in my own time. I just would prefer for others to not impose their ideas of what needs to change onto me.
It's hard to avoid straying into that territory when lots of modern politics have become "theories of everything", where certain observations of problems in the world seep into every aspect of life. So any given thing could lead into a discussion of how the entire world needs to be fundamentally reorganized, and that in turn means every person needs to fundamentally reorient themselves around that transformation.
It becomes increasingly difficult to keep my internal world and intrinsic motivations that are purely my own from the external world and extrinsic motivations that everyone weighs in on.
I dont want to fall into an alt right rabbit hole and become a Neo nazi or anything, so I get why the article got removed. I just haven't found much writing that resonates with my ideals of self determination that doesn't also end up being tied to some of that far right stuff.
You have the choice not to fall into that rabbit hole. I think it's a truth of the world that we can't fully keep our interior lives separate from the world at large. In many ways it can be useful to acknowledge the large systemic problems and continue forward doing what you think is the best. I'm not going to claim to know whether your "best" is "enough". But perhaps you're feeling some cognitive dissonance there of acknowledging you could make some change and also not wanting to. Honestly that's not uncommon. And perhaps you're not feeling dissonance and just want to be left alone. That's nearly impossible in a social world. I hope you have some IRL folks - who you know aren't toxic - you can talk about this with. Professional, family, friend, whichever.
The fact that the author felt compelled to write the term "cisheterophobia" makes me question their intentions.
"Biological sex" is not a binary, and I would have hoped that someone whose views had widened to the extent they claim would include that fact. For someone whose sexuality is strictly non-binary, you'd think they could extend that view towards other aspects of human existence.
Additionally, invoking MLK (and specifically, only his quote about the content of character versus the color of their skin) is never a great look for a white guy.
Just about everything else throughout the article reeks of strawmanning:
They've established their strawman - social justice is a religion. There is no consensus, and the whole reason to establish that argument is to swing the author's previous bludgeon, used against religion, towards social justice instead.
The fact that the author is unironically invoking Vivek Ramaswamy as anything other than a scam artist makes me wonder what their media diet looks like.
I don't want to belabor this reply further, but man ... this article is a hard read, because at very few points is the author actually criticizing social justice. At almost every step, they are criticizing religion, and using a strawman argument to attach social justice movements to it.
EDIT TO ADD:
Just dropping that here. The author is simply oozing from every pore with right wing talking points, despite their proclaimed politics.
I just want to note that a bisexual who denies trans people's identities is still existing in a very binary sexuality. Even though they're not "picking a side" they are absolutely still complicit and engaging with sexuality in a binary fashion.
They still think it's a sporting event with only two teams, rather than the Olympics with multiple sports, categories and events, they're just a fan of both teams.
I agree with you, and I appreciate you calling out my imprecise language!
It's true, being bisexual in the way that the author is, is still being binary (men -or- women). I just find the circumstances of the author's views strange.
They were raised believing that all non-traditional heterosexual relationships were sinful, or perhaps unnatural. As they grew up, they found themselves attracted to "both sexes", and came to realize that the religious heteronormative relationships he once believed to be the "only" right way for people to engage with, were lies.
I find it odd that that's where the evolution in his thought stopped.
It's the contradiction of Log Cabin Republicans and Transphobic queer people. It's one of those incredibly frustrating things to see oppressed people participate in oppression, especially their own
I appreciate this article and its focus on the value of old school liberalism. My primary issue is I feel it's a bit light on the philosophy and heavy on the testimony.
Critical theory is absolutely overused in my view. Even though post modernists broadly reject grand narratives used to explain everything, some people seem to use post modernist critical theory as some global theory of oppression. For example, a post modernist would reject Marx's explanation of history as a tale of class-based economic oppression and conflict.
That said, it feels like the author is throwing the baby out with the baby out with the bath water in dismissing critical theory whole cloth. I take particular umbrage with how he lazily criticizes critical pedagogy (Wikipedia link) simply by associating it with religious figures.
That's all well and true, but I'm not such an angry agnostic as to dismiss all philosophy written by religious figures. Clearly the author agrees as he mentions that many enlightenment figures were religious. It's important to be critical in philosophical analysis and actually grapple with the meat of an argument. Steel-manning an argument is better straw-manning.
The entire point of critical pedagogy is to avoid indoctrination and create strong, independent learners who are self-actualized and question the world! I've known teachers that utilized critical pedagogy to become effective facilitators of student learning, and what a difference it makes when you teach students to learn and teach themselves rather than blindly accept the content of a staid lecture!
Even if the article is a bit heavy-handed, I appreciate the author's intent nevertheless.
I agree about it being more testimonial than philosophical. Too much of it relied on specific examples that aren't necessarily representative of any broader theme.
It's like the idea that only a small percent of the internet is made up of assholes, but those assholes end up making the whole of a website seem like trash, and then people start to believe everyone on the internet is an asshole. Testimonial examples of specific instances where people were toxic tend to paint in broad strokes when probably lots if the people in those groups don't behave like the worst examples.
I've some major issues with the article and I'd rather not see its ilk on Tildes. If I wanted to see conservative whining I'd go back to Reddit. It's one thing to have problems with the social justice movement in America - I'm not a huge fan myself - but to pin it all on illiberalism is to ignore reality.
Firstly, there's the matter of detail. What exactly are the author's "liberal values"? Considering liberalism's focus on the individual, I would hardly call opening speeches with specifying one's identity as "illiberal"; I dare say it is very liberal to do that. Although he glosses over exactly which identities he dislikes: he was obviously fine when people were bisexual, but where does he draw that line?
What is this extreme language that his friend dislikes? He gives the reader enough detail about the response but glosses over the inciting statement. That feels suspicious to me.
Vivek Ramaswamy is a far-right politician who thinks Donald Trump should be pardoned, wants to ban abortion in the majority of cases, and thinks transgender people exist in a “deluded and mentally deranged state”. It's nonsense to consider him a source on anything worth writing about.
Oh, and the author is using verbatim transphobic buzzwords. Maybe his real issue with the social justice movement is that transgender acceptance has risen in recent years.
The author links to right-wing rubbish like the Daily Mail for sources, he blames all the problems of the movement on "Neo-Marxist equity", and he works classic transphobic phrases into speech. I wonder if the author's problem is caused by the mistaken belief that he's progressive at all.