Despite what some might believe, it’s worth the effort to try to understand what people are talking about when they use words like “intersectional,” if for no other reason than to clean out those excess brain cells. Would it not be unfair to be judgmental without giving them a chance to make their case?
We use the term in many vague ways. “We really need to be sure our work is intersectional…We need to be more intersectional in how we talk about student identities…Our teaching strategies must be intersectional and culturally responsive.” I don’t use “we” in the royal sense. This is something I do all the time without thinking critically about my meaning.
But what the hell are we even saying when we use the term?
I ask that question a lot. But it appears that no matter what the answer may be, it may still not be good enough to avoid the rebuke, if you’re lucky, or the death penalty, if you’re not, of not being correct enough.
An article in the current issue of the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia has created such a controversy over the past several days that the members of its board of associate editors have now issued an apology for publishing it.
The article is “In Defense of Transracialism” by Rebecca Tuvel, an assistant professor of philosophy at Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee. In the paper, Professor Tuvel takes up the question of whether the considerations that support accepting transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, which she endorses, provide support for accepting transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. She defends an affirmative answer to that question.
The obvious first problem is that the story begins deep within the rabbit hole. Forget Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, unless he happened to dress in women’s clothing while donning an afro wig. This isn’t your dead old white European man’s philosophy.
Nonetheless, in one popular public Facebook post, Nora Berenstain, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Tennessee, says the essay contains “discursive transmisogynistic violence.” She elaborates:
Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman. 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. In her discussion of “transracialism,” Tuvel doesn’t cite a single woman of color philosopher, nor does she substantively engage with any work by Black women, nor does she cite or engage with the work of any Black trans women who have written on this topic.
In the old days, one might fear a vicious philosophical dispute over good and evil. Now, it’s just about evil, as an insufficiently woke prof “enacts violence and perpetuates harm” through her “discursive transmisogynistic” ways.
And if that isn’t enough to make you literally shake, she “deadnames” a transwoman, which apparently means that she mentioned Caitlyn Jenner’s guy name, Bruce (that’s Bruce. Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. How many people have I enacted violence against by writing Bruce?). But that’s not all.
She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.”
Until now, I was unaware that phrases like “male genitalia” were enacting violence. Having enacted, over and over, it’s now clear to me why so many of you cry when reading a post at SJ. The pain you’ve suffered at my enactment is more than you should have to bear.
The feminist philosophy journal, Hypatia, has issued an apology for the trauma it caused. I would like to add my apologies as well. For the brain cells murdered because of your reading this post.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I now have a mental image of Nietzsche wearing hot pants, go-go boots and an Afro wig, standing on the corner asking, “Hey fella, want to talk philosophy?” I’m not sure if that will ruin my day or make it more bearable, but thanks either way.
If it works for lawyers, why not philosophers?
I can never get enough of that vid.
Every time I read something like that, I think of this
SHG:
Apology accepted.
The Facebook post from Ms. Berenstain* has been deleted. Most likely because Ms. Berenstain realized the stupidity of said post.
Regardless, she is an embarrassment to the University of Tennessee, and to Knoxville as a whole.
*If Ms. Berenstain ends up reading this comment, and identifies by another pronoun, zhe can politely kiss my woke ass.
I somehow doubt she realized the stupidity of her Facebook post. Rather, that deplorables found it and were enacting ever more transmisogynistic violence against her. Perhaps even mentioning genitalia. It was more than any righteous feminist philosophix could take.
Aren’t the Berenstains bears?
“They called me Bruce!”
Oy.
Shorter version: If you don’t share the views of the person who coined the term “intersectionality,” this is literally violent.
How are these people given writing space?
These people will teach your beloved child one day. And grade them. And decide whether they deserve a future or should be sacrificed to the intersectional gods.
Intersectionality is just an acknowledgement that life is unfair. That unfairness can take many forms and depends upon a person’s status in society on multiple levels. In the real world though it just turns into the Oppression Olympics. Nuanced discussion about it is impossible.
Not even other vetted intersectional feminists are safe; how is anyone else supposed to begin to talk about the issues without oppressing someone?
You are handsome and kind to small animals.
Thanks for the compliment. You’re a nice and thoughtful guy who cares about people.
Yes. Yes I am.
Sometimes, if my wife and I are in the car and she sees that I am attempting to dictate a text message, she will say “penis penis penis penis” to see if my phone will type that. Little did I know that she was committing transmisogynistic violence upon me! ?
Some husbands like that sort of thing, you know.
And it’s not “committing.” It’s “enacting.” Get your words right, you shitlord.
Just wondering, is it worse to “commit” violence or to “enact” violence? Asking for an un-woke friend.
I just learned about “enact.” I’m inadequately woke to know the answer. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?
Committing has the implication of being placed within an institution, so it would no doubt be considered worse.
What the hell does “placed within an institution” mean?
Being placed within a mental institution, sorry that should have been clearer.
Ah. So the problem with the word “committed” is that it has alternate meanings, one of which would be hurtful to people with mental illness, such that it can’t be used in its alternate form of committing violence. Now I understand. Thank you.
I think you mean “differently actualized cognitive reality” and not “mental illness”. I believe you have just enacted anti-transmental violence.
Clearly ‘committing’ is a transdefinitional word and deadconnoting it as synonymous with ‘effecting’ (with respect to acts of aggression, micro or macro) is enacting violence against language (or ‘violiteration’, for the woke among us).
Linguist, heal thyself.
My head hurts, now.
I guess I can’t say I wasn’t warned.
A clear example of privilege-induced blindness to oppression is SHG himself, who weaponizes words for a living yet mocks those who dare point out that language enacts violence. Language pretending to describe real phenomena while maintaining oppressive systems differs little from a guard tower or billy club. Besides “biological sex” and “male genitalia,” terms enactive of violence include “human biology,” “genetic” “evolution,” “heliocentric,” “anthropogenic global warming,” and “vaccine-preventable disease.” Deconstructing this language explains the existence of snuff porn.
Liar. I’ve never used heliocentric in my life.
Sorry, they didn’t cover that in law school, back in the “old days.” 🙂
Bull. You’re just not as woke as me.
So, apparently, just parenthetically mentioning a person’s former name when discussing their life history, like “Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner”, is the evil practice of “deadnaming”? Is it also evil to say “Muhammad Ali (formerly Cassius Clay)”, or “Istanbul (formerly Constantinople)”?
Your words are like a machine gun to my soul.
Isn’t that Antifa’s motto?
Now people are looking at me funny for laughing in class. Dick.
They Might Be Giants is a hate crime. Mostly because it is now stuck in my head.
Hey, thanks for looking up “deadnames” for me.
I worked with a trans woman for a few years. She deadnamed herself continually by prominently displaying in her office awards, plaques, etc., that were given to her when she was a man. I wonder what she thinks of allies like these?
I don’t know if a person can deadname themselves.
My brain hurt reading Professor Berenstein’s excerpt. That was not writing; that was word salad.
But word salad for highly refined tastes.
I’m not sure that it even qualifies as word salad. In a salad, the ingredients are supposed to go together in such a way that they complement each other, and generally taste good together. This wouldn’t be even remotely palatable without being drenched in 80-proof (or higher) brain bleach.
Or word butchery!
But between her and Scott, my brain hurts, too.
Hey, you’re not allowed to blame me. Volenti non fit injuria.
Please don’t use the letter j in Latin. I doesn’t exist in that language and you are clearly enacting some form of ethnocentric violence.
While you’re right, that’s how the phrase has come to be used in law. “Iniuria” just doesn’t have the right ring.
I’m not so sure about that. You do make readers cry, but that’s not the main reason.
You mean tears of joy, right? RIGHT?!?
The phrase “enacts violence” in reference to an ARTICLE gives me a near irresistible urge to show them what “enacting violence” actually looks like. Preferably by re-enacting the printer scene from Office Space on whatever tortured computer Ms. Berenstain enslaved to write that post.
It is impossible to properly describe the insanity of the original Facebook post–it’s sell worth a read.
The post has since been deleted, but here is an archive link should you care to share it:
http://archive.is/hPrDb
I was sad when I found it deleted this morning. Even the comments sent chills down my spine.
It really is Kafkaesque. I followed a few other threads on Facebook, and they rapidly devolve into the claim that disagreement = violence, at least if the people you’re disagreeing with are trans. And the introduction of the term epistemic violence makes it even worse, since you’re then required not only to say the right things, but to think the right things.
Christ, these people are insane.
Of course you’re required to think the right things. There is no mens rea requirement for the crime of enacting violence
I understand that these people spend years of their lives devoted to the serious study of things like “postfeminist intersectional epistemology”. Far be it from me to want to denigrate their expertise. However, by the same token they ought to recognize that there are a whole lot of people who’ve similarly spent years studying violence – from soldiers to guys whose middle names show up in quotes and start with “The” – and they’re pretty unanimous in rejecting the SJW definition of the term.
Those mobsters and their privilege.
So funny when the batshit crazies start attacking each other.
Jesse Singal called it a witch hunt. I think it’s cannibalism, and they’re devouring their own.
I love a good example of Liebig’s Law in action. There is only so much room at the top of the food chain.
I was happier when I didn’t know a thing called Hypatia existed. These people are fucking nuts. And is really that hard to remember that in addition to be a spectical, the other rather large problem with Dolezal is that she faked multiple hate crimes against herself for media attention?
“I think we need to situate Tuvel’s harmful, violent, actively ignorant work within the broader social context and acknowledge that it is the default disposition of cis white women to commit epistemic violence against trans people, against people of color, against women of color, against Black women, against trans women of color, against Black trans women. This is the norm for cis white women both within and outside of philosophy. It is not the exception”.
There is so much “cis white woman” guilt in her post I don’t know where to begin to comment. It would be like me saying “white, tall, thirty something lawyers are all assholes…..let me tell you about said lawyers”. A person hearing such comments would believe I have a mental disorder, instead of a PHD.
Are women not people? Is Black (why does Black get capitalize, but not white?) not “of color”? Are trans women not women? (well, no, they aren’t, but the nutjob who murdered all those words clearly feels they are). That sentence could have ended after “people of color” without changing the meaning one iota (to the extent it has any meaning at all).
Dickens was actually paid by the word, so at least he had some excuse for spending three pages to say Marley was as dead as a doornail. And, of course, he could actually write in the English language. This individual (I refuse to call her a writer) can’t (or chooses not to) use the language well enough to communicate anything of substance.
I suppose it’s another way in which Douglas Adams was prescient in his description of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation–their fundamental design flaws were completely overshadowed by their superficial design flaws.
When I was in highschool I used to think writing like hers was refined and educated because of all the big words she used. All I see now are the ramblings of a “pretend academic” who is feels her ranking on the suffering scale is lower than a lesbian trans-woman of color.
I still can’t understand how words are “violence”???
I take it you’ve never read an Opinion by First Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Bruce Selya. Trust me, he will hurt your head.
“…would believe I have a mental disorder, instead of a PHD.”
Not only aren’t the two mutually exclusive, but there seems to be a strong correlation.
Present!
Is it a good sign that the spellchecker objects to “transmisogynistic”?
Male coders. I’m literally shaking.
You have to put a dash in there: trans-misogynistic.
Children be warned! Cover your ears.
How about trans-misogynistic Unitarian-Theosophic –
Enlightenment-Transcendentalist?
Walden Pond-breath.
Oh, hi there Gloria Steinberger. Is that your natural hair color? Blond?
Walden Pond-breath?
And to think this whole ‘intersectionality’ thing started with DeGraffenreid v. GENERAL MOTORS. Thank you lawyers everywhere!
No, it didn’t. Not even a little bit.
OK, I’ll ask the editor(s) of sjwiki.org/wiki/Intersectionality to correct their history section. Thanks
Could you possibly have gone to a less credible source? Well, I guess there’s Everyday Feminism.
I look for one…
You have a mean streak, you know.
Now you sound like my wife…
So sexist.
Pingback: Fighting Over The Final Thought | Simple Justice
Pingback: At Duke, The Divine and The Sublime | Simple Justice
Pingback: Humility In The Center of the Universe | Simple Justice