Feminism at odds with the trans movement

KomradeBishop

The first and primary fallacy/mistake on Every. Single. Thread. that has ever discussed feminism, is talking about the movement like it's one homogenous group. This thread makes that mistake right in the title, by generalizing about 'Feminism', using a minority within the feminist movement.

It's no different than saying "White people are at odds with Black people", and then using the KKK to back that argument.

You get pages and pages and pages of debate based on that same fallacy - and no matter how many times the fallacy is pointed out, posters just keep on reusing it over and over and over - creating so much of an echo-chamber repetition of that same fallacy, that the generalization even starts to sink-in for otherwise normal forumgoers.


No - 'Feminism' is not at odds with the trans movement, the minority of feminists within the feminist movement, who have ideological issues with the very idea of transgender people, are at odds with the trans movement; if language isn't used accurately, whole movements get painted with the same brush, and discussion deteriorates instantly when people accept this and nobody points it out.

Saipanne

desertcircus wrote: »

Seriously though: your post said that Sarkeesian's modus operandi was to claim that she was being abused. She gets regular death threats and rape threats, and ignoring them is wildly dishonest.

Great stuff.

silverharp

Penn wrote: »

"YOUR 15 MINUTES OF FAME IS GONE BABY #DealWithIt NOT EVEN #GamerGate cares about your channel anymore. " - Not genuine criticism
" .. Yeah?? ..... I'm not looking forward to watch a lier" - Not genuine criticism
"Nah, you keep it luv. It'll be utter bull**** if you're endorsing it dear." - Not genuine criticism
"the only cancer is feminism" - Just nonsense
"You always complain the women are not treated fairly yet you represent everything wrong with not only women but the whole world." - Not genuine criticism

All of that, not even in response to a review of a game, but announcing that they will soon be posting a review of a game.

Explain to me how that's genuine criticism.

So what? Anyone can use the internet and one doesn't expect to find quality debate in the comments section of YouTube say, noting of course she turns off the comments on her channel.
Her only achievement seems to have getting to tell the UN that she gets told " she sucks "a lot on the internet

Penn

Saipanne wrote: »

You're just cherry picking bad comments to make it look like it's all abuse on her page, which is exactly my point.

Thank you.

No, in order to provide a clear example I took her most recent tweet.
Aside from those 5 tweets, here are the other direct responses to it (ie. not including people responding to each other but linked to that tweet):
"https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYTj-6_WsAAIUdR.jpg" (a tweet of a pic showing what percentage of her followers are fake)
"how about you address Cologne first ehh..."
"Is the game problematic?"
"Cool. The @Radiolab episode was heart-breaking http://www.radiolab.org/story/cathedral/ …
Kinda weird looking forward to bawling your eyes out."

So, out of the 9 direct responses to that tweet, taking the 5 I've already dealt with, we're left with one saying some of her followers are fake accounts (for now, let's consider it genuine criticism). One asking why she isn't responding to the sex-attacks in Germany (not genuine criticism, but not trolling/abuse either). One normal tweet about something unrelated (the Radiolab one). And one genuine tweet about the post she made.

So, out of 9 direct responses to her most recent tweet:
1 reply about the tweet
1 reply about something unrelated
1 genuine criticism
1 asking why she isn't taking about the sex attacks in Germany which is just weird considering nothing she does is related to that, unless thinking sexual assault is bad is exclusively a feminist issue
5 trolling/abuse

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No - 'Feminism' is not at odds with the trans movement, the minority of feminists within the feminist movement, who have ideological issues with the very idea of transgender people, are at odds with the trans movement; if language isn't used accurately, whole movements get painted with the same brush, and discussion deteriorates instantly when people accept this and nobody points it out.

Is there even a feminist 'movement' any more though? Come to think of it, is there even a trans 'movement'?

It seems obvious that if there isn't a homogenous group, there can't be any movement, as that would imply progress was being made. I don't see it tbh, all I see is individuals competing amongst themselves for how many labels they can apply to themselves while making up new labels to make themselves out to be unique in some respect. This sort of individualist perspective seems to have stalled any movement IMO.

Penn

silverharp wrote: »

So what? Anyone can use the internet and one doesn't expect to find quality debate in the comments section of YouTube say, noting of course she turns off the comments on her channel.
Her only achievement seems to have getting to tell the UN that she gets told " she sucks "a lot on the internet

I was responding to the point made that she claims to receive abuse in order to silence genuine criticism. I'm making the counter-point that oftentimes (though likely a lot less now than when Gamergate was in full swing) she receives more abuse than genuine criticism.

Funnily enough, in your own post, you threw in a dig at her personally (Her only achievement...) when it wasn't relevant to the post you were making. Kinda proves my point tbh.

FWIW, I think I might have watched half of one FemFreq video before. I have no real opinion on Anita whatsoever.

johnny_ultimate

As somebody who'd happily say I am in general a pretty adamant supporter of feminism, I also think it's more than fair to say aspects of contemporary feminism are utterly preposterous. I have no time for the 'men hating' extreme. I firmly disagree with the transphobia of some prominent critics. I also think the 'sex negativity' present in quite a bit of current feminist critique is simplistic and often misguided. Every philosophy has extremists, and it'd be absurd to agree with every point of view put forward by people or groups you'd generally support or sympathise with (I find it incredibly silly how people tend to almost obsessively self-identify with ****ing hashtags). But in terms of feminism as a movement promoting equality and critiquing some of the prevalent social, cultural, political trends etc..., yes I'm in that camp.

As said, many examples of modern feminism are totally worthy of criticism and in some cases near outright dismissal. Intelligent, thorough and respectful criticism is essential to provide balance and counterpoints - that's how a healthy critical landscape works. But I am also of the opinion that the broad movement of feminism in the broad sense is as essential as ever. Jessie Thompson wrote an article welcoming Twitter's decision to remove Milo Yiannopolous' 'verified' badge. While there's certainly an argument to be had about the motivations and 'rightfulness' of Twitter's decision - although personally I think many of the cries of 'censorship' and 'free speech' are disingenuous in the extreme given the carry on that leads to these sort of actions - the response was anything but reasonable. If there was any worthy criticism of the article - and it's not exactly Pulitzer deserving material, let's be honest here - it was overwhelmed by the avalanche of abuse that followed. Graham Linehan referred to them as 'Milo's toilet people', which I can't find myself disagreeing with.

So yes the trolls arguably drown out people who offer meaningful critique of these sorts of issues. Much (almost all?) of the internet is an absolute cesspit when it comes to having anything resembling a rational discussion about these issues, and in many cases actively prove the necessity of the continued existence of the other side of the debate. There's extremists on the left and the right, the misogynists and the misandrists. And while personally my beliefs are much more aligned with the feminist side, I continue to find it depressing just how nasty and toxic the discussions tend to become, and how any worthy discussion is almost inevitably hijacked by the worst people or what could generously be described as a mob.

Saipanne

Penn wrote: »

No, in order to provide a clear example I took her most recent tweet.
Aside from those 5 tweets, here are the other direct responses to it (ie. not including people responding to each other but linked to that tweet):
"https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYTj-6_WsAAIUdR.jpg" (a tweet of a pic showing what percentage of her followers are fake)
"how about you address Cologne first ehh..."
"Is the game problematic?"
"Cool. The @Radiolab episode was heart-breaking http://www.radiolab.org/story/cathedral/ …
Kinda weird looking forward to bawling your eyes out."

So, out of the 9 direct responses to that tweet, taking the 5 I've already dealt with, we're left with one saying some of her followers are fake accounts (for now, let's consider it genuine criticism). One asking why she isn't responding to the sex-attacks in Germany (not genuine criticism, but not trolling/abuse either). One normal tweet about something unrelated (the Radiolab one). And one genuine tweet about the post she made.

So, out of 9 direct responses to her most recent tweet:
1 reply about the tweet
1 reply about something unrelated
1 genuine criticism
1 asking why she isn't taking about the sex attacks in Germany which is just weird considering nothing she does is related to that, unless thinking sexual assault is bad is exclusively a feminist issue
5 trolling/abuse

1) Again, I didn't see this proportion of abuse when I browsed her page. I think you're cherry picking.

2) Its Twitter. Just about every public figure with an opinion gets trolled. I don't approve of it, but it's the internet. We all know the negative aspects of it. Public figures with provocative opinions are always going to be targets of online abuse. But she tries to spin it as if every critic is a troll, and that's just a lie.

Duggy747

I can't get behind anyone who has a "Us vs Them" mentality or that everybody and everything must be shoe-horned into very specific criterias, no matter what the movement is and their ideologies are. Any form of censorship I absolutely do not stand by either (The banning of "sexist" songs in universities like Blurred Lines...........despite me thinking it's a completely shít song anyways :pac:)

I've known lots of people who fell into this mentality and ironically ended up having very black and white views of the world. "You either identify as a feminist or you simply support the patriarchal system that persecutes women, minorities and homosexuals!" for example was what used to be beat over mine and other female friends' heads by them.

In regards to modern feminism, it's a very small but very loud minority that gets heard the most too many times in media that people end up getting the wrong idea about feminism as a whole. People brush these fringe movements aside as something silly but, honestly, these vocal minorities (plural because there's a few of them that even conflict with each other) are loud and appear too frequently enough that they and their "extreme" views need to be confronted head-on.

Places like Tumblr and The Guardian's frequent outrageous, almost parody click bait articles / opinion pieces are what some people tend to use as "examples" of modern feminism. Sexist ties, scientist's shirts, and patriarchal air-conditioning are easier to spread virally and rile people up with than the actual serious problems the larger movement focuses on.

Penn

Saipanne wrote: »

1) Again, I didn't see this proportion of abuse when I browsed her page. I think you're cherry picking.

2) Its Twitter. Just about every public figure with an opinion gets trolled. I don't approve of it, but it's the internet. We all know the negative aspects of it. Public figures with provocative opinions are always going to be targets of online abuse. But she tries to spin it as if every critic is a troll, and that's just a lie.

1) Again, I took her most recent tweet to use as an example. I fully agree that some tweets the trolling will be less, and some tweets the trolling might be more, but in the interest of fairness, I took her most recent tweet to use as an example. If her most recent tweet had less abuse, I still would have picked it.

2) Maybe that's because most of her critics seem to throw in abusive comments or are needlessly derogatory while trying to make genuine criticisms.

One eyed Jack

Duggy747 wrote: »

I
Places like Tumblr and The Guardian's frequent outrageous, almost parody click bait articles / opinion pieces are what some people tend to use as "examples" of modern feminism. Sexist ties, scientist's shirts, and patriarchal air-conditioning are easier to spread virally and rile people up with than the actual serious problems the larger movement focuses on.

What larger movement though? I don't think anyone can even be sure what feminism means any more as it means so many different things to so many different people. I can completely understand why some people who identify as feminist would have massive issues with people who identify as transgender who also identify as women. People are entitled to identify as they choose, but they're not entitled to have everyone perceive them the same way they see themselves.

silverharp

Penn wrote: »

I was responding to the point made that she claims to receive abuse in order to silence genuine criticism. I'm making the counter-point that oftentimes (though likely a lot less now than when Gamergate was in full swing) she receives more abuse than genuine criticism.

Funnily enough, in your own post, you threw in a dig at her personally (Her only achievement...) when it wasn't relevant to the post you were making. Kinda proves my point tbh.

FWIW, I think I might have watched half of one FemFreq video before. I have no real opinion on Anita whatsoever.

Its the nature of internet commentary , the gamers or whoever have made up their mind about her. I just don't see how it could be any different. I only heard of her because the YouTube channel thunderf00t did a bunch of critical videos on her which made a better case than hers

kunst nugget

The only time I ever hear about Anita Sarkeesian is when other people are giving out about her. Wouldn't it not make most sense for them to just ignore her and starve her of the publicity that they all give out to her for seeking?

desertcircus

Saipanne wrote: »

1) Again, I didn't see this proportion of abuse when I browsed her page. I think you're cherry picking.

2) Its Twitter. Just about every public figure with an opinion gets trolled. I don't approve of it, but it's the internet. We all know the negative aspects of it. Public figures with provocative opinions are always going to be targets of online abuse. But she tries to spin it as if every critic is a troll, and that's just a lie.

Most people don't get specific death threats.

johnny_ultimate

kunst nugget wrote: »

The only time I ever hear about Anita Sarkeesian is when other people are giving out about her. Wouldn't it not make most sense for them to just ignore her and starve of her the publicity that they all give out to her for seeking?

There's a certain irony in the fact that many of the people who shout loudest about 'censorship!' and 'free speech!' won't settle for anything less than the complete eradication - by brute force, if necessary - of points of view they disagree with

Saipanne

desertcircus wrote: »

Most people don't get specific death threats.

Based on what? Nothing. Awesome.

Saipanne

silverharp wrote: »

Its the nature of internet commentary , the gamers or whoever have made up their mind about her. I just don't see how it could be any different. I only heard of her because the YouTube channel thunderf00t did a bunch of critical videos on her which made a better case than hers

His videos are quite amusing, though he can be a tit himself, sometimes.

desertcircus

Saipanne wrote: »

Based on what? Nothing. Awesome.

Do you actually have a point here, or are you just picking random words?

Saipanne

desertcircus wrote: »

Do you actually have a point here, or are you just picking random words?

You're just making stuff up. That's my point. You invent false premises, and then you treat them as fact. You also seem to use an emotive style of writing, reaching for top shelf adjectives, in the hope that it will add weight to your argument.

All of this just makes it near impossible to take you seriously. So I won't.

Regards

Saipanne

kunst nugget

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's a certain irony in the fact that many of the people who shout loudest about 'censorship!' and 'free speech!' won't settle for anything less than the complete eradication - by brute force, if necessary - of points of view they disagree with

Ah, it's a fixture of both sides of this Twitter culture war.

desertcircus

Saipanne wrote: »

You're just making stuff up. That's my point. You invent false premises, and then you treat them as fact. You also seem to use an emotive style of writing, reaching for top shelf adjectives, in the hope that it will add weight to your argument.

All of this just makes it near impossible to take you seriously. So I won't.

Regards

Saipanne

Let me get this straight: your contention is that Anita Sarkeesian is not subjected to abuse?

Saipanne

desertcircus wrote: »

Let me get this straight: your contention is that Anita Sarkeesian is not subjected to abuse?

Another false premise. No. I've said this already, but she uses this abuse to tar all critics as trolls in order to create a situation where every critic of Sarkeesian is now viewed as a bully. Or at least that's what her disciples hope.

Wait, are you going to say that "others" don't get the same abuse? Bollocks.

mzungu

I have discussed this with friends who are feminists and they find the man hating, excessive self victimisation and trans phobic agenda to be abhorrent. The problem here is that this very small subset of modern day Feminism seem to be given ample platforms in the media to air their views unchallenged. I have no issue with them spouting their views, but it really should be throughly debated and dissected and exposed for the complete BS that it is. Although that might be seen as oppression in their eyes.

Also, this CIS/TERF/Whatever your having yourself, is madness. It is like it was dreamed up by ivory tower academics in order to flesh out a gender studies module.

desertcircus

Saipanne wrote: »

Another false premise. No. I've said this already, but she uses this abuse to tar all critics as trolls in order to create a situation where every critic of Sarkeesian is now viewed as a bully. Or at least that's what her disciples hope.

Wait, are you going to say that "others" don't get the same abuse? Bollocks.

So now you're accepting that she does get abuse including dealth threats and rape threats? That's at least an improvement on you saying she was "claiming" to be receiving abuse. More to the point, though, have you an example of cogent and non-abusive criticism of her work that's been shut down by people who agree with her?

Saipanne

desertcircus wrote: »

So now you're accepting that she does get abuse including dealth threats and rape threats? That's at least an improvement on you saying she was "claiming" to be receiving abuse. More to the point, though, have you an example of cogent and non-abusive criticism of her work that's been shut down by people who agree with her?

Making stuff up again. I'm no longer responding.

desertcircus

Saipanne wrote: »

But, when her ideas are challenged she (Anita) plays the victim, saying that she is the victim of abuse. She, and her followers use this in an attempt to silence critics.

This is all consistent with pretty much any ideology, by the way. They are all the same. Feminism just happens to be the most visible one, right now.

You, earlier in this thread, accusing Sarkeesian of "playing the victim" while failing to mention anything whatsoever about the fact that she's been subjected to multiple death threats and rape threats.

tritium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there even a feminist 'movement' any more though? Come to think of it, is there even a trans 'movement'?

It seems obvious that if there isn't a homogenous group, there can't be any movement, as that would imply progress was being made. I don't see it tbh, all I see is individuals competing amongst themselves for how many labels they can apply to themselves while making up new labels to make themselves out to be unique in some respect. This sort of individualist perspective seems to have stalled any movement IMO.

It seems obvious, and yet we still get groups within feminism describing anyone who disagrees with them as anti-feminists etc.. As someone said earlier a large portion of what gets airtime these days is more about protecting grant funding and tenured positions than any interest in women's (or anyone else's ) issues

Penn

Saipanne wrote: »

Another false premise.

Saipanne wrote: »

I've said this already, but she uses this abuse to tar all critics as trolls in order to create a situation where every critic of Sarkeesian is now viewed as a bully. Or at least that's what her disciples hope.

I mean, you do see the similarity here, right? Anita/Disciples may indeed sometimes take something minor and make it seem like abuse, but at the same time, critics of Anita will also try and downplay abuse as just being general criticism.

Kev W

Saipanne wrote: »

Making stuff up again. I'm no longer responding.

There was absolutely nothing "made up" in the post you quoted.

cowboyBuilder

What an absolute f*cking lunatic !!!

Is she for real ? talk about labelling all men as the same ... jesus christ, if we did that with Women or on racial/religious ID we'd be publicly shot!