Lack of privilege as method of domination

•April 7, 2018 • Leave a Comment

MeltDow2

one of the methods of domination is the Hierarchy Method – SILENCING and INVALIDATING – below is an excellent example of this – executed by a woman i encountered a few days ago. i should have seen it coming when she introduced herself to me by saying “Are you implying that…” but i didn’t and the result is below.

(hint: when people start their comment with “are you implying…?” it is never a sincere question. it is a passive aggressive way of masking that they have already decided what you are saying, and that they are not really interested in your answer.)

Me:
“Trans women were socialized male, same as I as [a trans man] was socialized female – unless they had extremely progressive parents who picked up on their status as transgender at pre-school age or before, they cannot have avoided being socialized male to an extent that does influence some basic stuff.”

this sparked a nice little illustration of how ‘lack of privilege is used to silence and invalidate’ those one disagrees with. it is repeatedly used by activists in various settings and groups. i have been guilty of doing this on occasion myself.

Her:
“Are you aware that you are talking to a trans woman? As a trans man you have privilege over me when it comes to issues like this, so can i please ask that you acknowledge that before you continue to spread the rhetoric that harms women like me.”

on issues of gender and gender socialization i have no privilege over other trans people, nor they over me – on the matter of gender socialization we are absolutely equal. pulling out ‘the privilege card’ here is just a way to suggest that i am violating this ‘poor trans woman by expressing an opinion she disagrees with’. also note how she uses the word ‘rhetoric’ – one definition of ‘rhetoric’ is “language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. just another way of saying that what i say is meaningless prattle.

Me:
“i am not spreading any rhetoric other than that which is based in my own experience – which i have every right to share anywhere i like.”

claiming the right to express my opinion about the issue, which is based on personal experience, should have concluded the discussion. it didn’t. (hint: arguing against someone else’s personal experience is another way to silence and invalidate them).

Her:
“Not if it involves ideas that uplift yourself and your cis wife but marginalize others.

there goes my rights to express my personal experience. i am being accused of using my wife and myself to marginalize her and others, exactly how she doesn’t say, which is another part of the ‘silencing and invalidating’.

mentioning my wife’s cis-status is done to convey the contempt she feels for cis-people and for me who married a cis-person, which is often seen as a traitorous assimilation by some trans people.  my opinion on the issue of gender socialization is invalid because i am married to a cis-woman.

she has to mention my wife, because my wife is the only one present in the discussion that has any privilege and since her argument is shaky she needs every little piece of leverage she can get her hands on.

i do not have any privilege over her in the discussion and i think she is aware of that on some level, however being married to a cis-person is also often seen as the ultimate success and confirmation of one’s gender transition and identity. my status as married to a cis-woman is thus seen as a “privilege”. though this privilege would only exist within the trans community and only if talking to a person with this specific view, not in society as a whole. which thus negates the whole idea that me being married to a cis-person grants me any privilege.

Her:
“The rhetoric you are spreading is that trans women are not women because of their “socialization”.

no. not true. i have never said that, thought that or meant that, but i can see how she is reading what i actually say that way – because of these abominable people: TERFs. i include both trans women and trans men in my initial statement in the discussion. i include both trans women and trans men initially because not to do so would be illogical.

if my ‘rhetoric’ harms trans women it must also logically harm trans men – why would i say things that harm myself? that makes no sense, and it makes no sense because the truth is that saying that “Trans women were socialized male, same as I as [a trans man] was socialized female.” doesn’t harm either of us.

not admitting that we are socialized the way we are is harming us, because it means that we have not truly accepted all of who we are and that opens up a window of insecurity through which people like TERF can reach our inner beings. that is extremely harmful.

not admitting that we have been socialized according to our birth-assigned gender is also harmful because it implies this doesn’t need to be changed – it’s not happening, so gender specific treatment of children is OK.

Her:
“I think it is for the best that you stay in your lane when topics like this one are being brought up.”

ah. yes. gender politics is not my lane, because i am a trans man.

 

Advertisements

Neurotypical Trolls

•April 2, 2018 • Leave a Comment

angry bear2My wife joined the discussion about neurotypicals and parenting autistic children (you can read my blog on that discussion here:

“Neurotypical PhD, how is that (have many ppl have here kids) in any way related?
I don’t have any pets, but I will not shut up about people abusing their pets.
I have never been pregnant, but I will not shut up about abortion rights.
I haven’t been shot at, I don’t own guns, I have never gone on gun violence rampage, but I will not shut up about gun violence.
People don’t need to have children to say child abuse is child abuse.
People don’t need to have autistic children to say child abuse is child abuse.

And I will not call a child abuser a lady, however justified she and you and all the other NNs think she is in her abuse.

None of us is in her shoes. Doesn’t make it OK for her to treat her son like that.

I wish you had more compassion for the child than to the mother. I assume you identify yourself with her. We identify ourselves with the child.
You might be totally OK with being dragged on a leash on streets, I am not. So I refuse to be OK with anyone else being dragged on a leash.
I also care more about the child’s opinion than the mother’s opinion. I think the possible victim’s opinion on whether he is a victim or not is more important than the perpetrator’s.
And I’m pretty sure we all read the article. We aren’t reacting on the photo. We are reacting on what the mother said.

You say it’s hard to be a parent. It’s even harder to be a child.
You say it’s harder to parent an autistic child. I say it’s even harder to be an autistic child.
Adults have other adults to talk with. The child has no-one. Severely autistic children might never have anyone to talk to, they might not even be able to talk.
Have you ever tried to imagine what it is like to not be able to express yourself? I don’t think so.

The best way to understand a non-verbal autistic person is to listen to a verbal autistic person, not some non-autistic “expert”, who keeps repeating idiotic dogma like “autistic people have no compassion or feelings”, “autistic people cannot put themselves in other people’s shoes” or other such crap.
We all know those people exist. Temple Grandin’s mother knew they exist. She chose to listen to her sense and raise the girl as any child. Tell your friends this:

Being a parent of an autistic child is like being a parent to ANY child.

You get your children as babies so that you learn to parent them.
You listen to them. You observe them. You learn to read their body language. You learn what makes them tick. You learn what calms them down. You learn what they like and what they don’t like. You learn how sensitive they are.

Babies aren’t verbal either. Do you drag them, too, if they scream when you pick them up? Probably you would.
I mean, it is common sense that you don’t drag children anywhere! Getting upset about it is sane and normal. Not “judging”.

Also, if you really cared about kids and getting help, you wouldn’t mind the way the help is offered. But, apparently, it’s more important to be right than to be happy. After all, this mother whines about being judged, not asking for solutions.

My solution is to let the boy stay away from situations he obviously finds stressful. Come on. It’s not rocket science.

This mother got herself pregnant and she chose not to abort the pregnancy. She is voluntarily in the situation she is in. Let her “man up” and stop whining and finding excuses and “defending” herself against deserved critique.

And you, too. Yes, you are whining. “I’m being attacked” “you need to express yourself less aggressive”, whine whine whine.

Why should we sugarcoat our advice to make it easier for you to swallow? It’s your NN privilege you need to swallow.

to which this neurotypical troll responded with the following video – no i cannot show it here i am on a free plan for WordPress – then she followed up with this little gif and finally she posted this Mike Myers gif.

so just your garden variety neurotypical troll. it is a my wife said – whether any of us have kids or not is totally irrelevant – we can still consider child abuse abominable and abhorrent. it is these kinds of people who not only condone abuse of autistic children and adults, but perpetuate it and celebrate it.

i am sure this piece of garbage is sitting somewhere feeling really smug and satisfied with herself for having ‘told a bunch of retarded mental cases off’- one of them her own cousin.

 

how NTs dominate the ND narrative

•March 28, 2018 • Leave a Comment

Just shouting out for Autism Awareness Week

My 'Morning' Coffee

the text below was adapted from this article. i have switched out ‘cis’ for ‘neurotypical’ and ‘trans’ for ‘neurodifferent’. the original article was written by Cristan Williams.

angry-bear5there are, by orders of magnitude, more neurotypical people than neurodifferent people in the world. when one considers the amount of discourse happening around the neurodifferent experience, due to sheer numbers, a neurotypical understanding of “neurodifferent issues” is dominant in our society today. this dynamic ensures that the dominant “neurodifferent” narrative is also a false narrative that is repeated, analyzed, and criticized ad nauseum by a largely neurotypical audience, reinforcing the validity of this dominant (and factually inaccurate) “neurodifferent” narrative. when neurodifferent people protest the propagation of the dominant (and factually inaccurate) “neurodifferent” narrative about the neurodifferent experience, neurodifferent people are told that we are stifling free speech, that we are snowflakes, or that we just need to learn to…

View original post 220 more words

TERFs are no better than MRAs

•March 28, 2018 • 2 Comments

boxinggloves1Ha! Yes. This is so spot on that I, a trans-man, could have written it myself – good job Dale 🙂

Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

Recently I have discovered a particularly insidious group of seemingly progressive women who have turned out to be using the same selfish, arrogant, and offensive impulses as anti-feminists or Men’s Right Activists (MRAs). These women are known as TERFs, Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists, and they are very dangerous!

Until tonight, I did not know all the bogus and hateful claims of the TERFs, but a blog entry seems to have finally assembled them together for all to see.

View original post 630 more words

Mass-shootings are a white male privilege

•March 25, 2018 • Leave a Comment

angry-bear4My previous post on the matter of white male privilege and mass-shootings/school-shootings can be found here
———

“You’re confusing the people fearful of having their guns taken away (the fearful white people to whom I was referring) with the unbalanced overwhelmingly white males that are murdering people en masse.”

Of course ‘white people’ with guns (they shouldn’t have imo) are fearful that they might lose their privilege (and their guns). However “angry white men” is exactly what this is about – not ‘white people’. Talking about ‘white people’ in the context is a deflective measure that, imo, only serves one purpose – remove the focus from the white male privilege that is the very core of why we have”unbalanced overwhelmingly white males that are murdering people en masse.”

That those opposed to being shot by these “angry white men”, is not talking about taking away all guns (though they should, imo) doesn’t seem to register with ‘white people who are also gun-owners’. That is just another hallmark of ‘white privilege’ – because the ‘white people who are also gun-owners’ cannot comprehend why anyone would be afraid to be shot by them, because ‘they would never shoot anyone, they are nice people’. (if they would never shoot anyone – why have a gun in the first place?)

This guy just doesn’t get it:

“On my Facebook feed, I see many more pro-gun posts by women than I do by men”

No – removing the ‘color-signifier’ does not help.

How is this relevant to the discussion, other than as a deflection from your own white male privilege – it isn’t. And you simply don’t get why.

Why do I keep pointing back to “angry white men” and the white male privilege that drives them to believe they have the right to go Rambo or Wick on their schoolmates? Because the issue with white males who go Rambo or Wick on their schoolmates isn’t about pro or anti-guns or which gender is which.

It is about a very specific kind of privilege – white male privilege – and a very specific kind of gun – the AR-15 and AR-15 style rifles – i.e a military style guns that has the capacity to kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time. In the most recent school-shooting in Parkland it took one man 6.20 minutes to kill 17 and wound 17 – that’s 34 people in 6.20 minutes…

“When a gunman walked into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, he was carrying an AR-15-style rifle that allowed him to fire upon people in much the same way that many American soldiers and Marines would fire their M16 and M4 rifles in combat. Since 2007, at least 173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s, according to a New York Times analysis. The grim list includes crimes in Newtown, Conn.; Las Vegas; San Bernardino, Calif.; and now Parkland, Fla.” (New York Times).

Unless the white (privileged) people who are afraid that they will lose their guns are hiding AR-15s and AR-15 style rifles – i.e a military style guns that has the capacity to kill a lot of people in a very short amount of time in their closets and under their beds and plan to use them against innocent people, they have nothing to fear.

 

White Male Privilege, the gun-lobby and the survivors of Parkland/MSD

•March 25, 2018 • Leave a Comment

angry-bear4“The NRA and it’s supporters have viciously attack the teen survivors of the Parkland/MSD School shootings,
Those brave souls have been labeled, “skinhead lesbian”, “immature”, “paid actors”, “coached and scripted”….all in a frantic attempt to detract from their legitimate concern about not being gunned down in their classrooms…
They have been mocked, degraded and attacked, because apparently having assault style weapons in the hands of angry white men is infinitely more important than preventing school massacres, infinitely more important than preventing abusive boyfriends and husbands from shooting their estranged spouses/girlfriends…
I cannot understand the perverse logic that insists that gun ownership supersedes the well being of these people, and the right of us all to be free from the threat of gun violence…” (Ronald Eugene Grossman)

Neither can I – until I actually think about it. The answer is quite simple. White male privilege. Not all agree of course – especially not white males:

“I would take issue with only two words of the OP. Instead of “angry white men,” I would suggest “fearful white people.”

I bet you would – because you are a white male and you are scared witless that these young adults from Parkland/MSD will succeed. That they will actually remove part of your privilege and create a society where you are just equal to everyone else. No power beyond what G-d gave you.

The problem is ‘white male privilege’ and the sense of ‘entitlement’ this leads to – they (the shooters) really believe they have the right to ‘go all Rambo or Wick’ on their schoolmates if they think they have the slightest little offense to avenge themselves for. Without guns these white males with entitlement issues would not have the means to act on their privilege.

Of course pointing to side-issues, that are irrelevant to the matter at hand, is a favored tactics – just use a straw-man to deflect the issue away from your white maleness – after all it is part of your white male privilege to do so:

“The most pro-NRA posts I see are posted by women”

(That was the fattest straw man I have seen in a while.) Now, back to the matter of the vast majority of school-shooters being white males with entitlement issues, thinking they can ‘go all Rambo or Wick’ on anyone, anywhere simply because they are white and male.

While NRA might not actively attempt to physically erase the Parkland/MSD survivors and protesters, NRA has enough sway with f.i white supremacists, tea party rednecks or survivalist militias to rile them up. Even to a point where any of these groups will consider physical violence against the Parkland/MSD survivors and protesters. Especially if they feel that they are ‘losing the battle’.

Luckily for the Parkland/MSD survivors and protesters, the gun-lobby cannot very well ‘go all Rambo or Wick’ on them, not without severe repercussions – though I do believe that they would happily do so, and some might even be seriously planning to do so.

In which case we will have to look for a skilled white male sniper with military background or the equivalent. Because that will not be a ‘lone gun-man snuck into the crowd’ – that will be a ‘lone-gun-man on a roof-top with highly organized back-up and financing’.

But that is just another part of White Male Privilege.

Accidents with guns do not just happen

•March 25, 2018 • Leave a Comment

angry-bear3

“A 7-month-old baby is in hospital after being accidentally shot by a 4-year-old at a house in Temple, Texas.”[…]”I’m not there to judge them, but in my family, it happened once with my cousin,” Martinez told KXXV. “My cousin killed accidentally my other cousin. It happens. Accidents happen.” (Crooks and Liars)

Accidents with guns do not just happen. A 4-year old doesn’t just shoot a 7-month-old baby ‘by accident’. There is nothing accidental about it. A 4-year old shoots his 7-month-old baby sibling because he had access to a gun. A gun about which his parents had a sign on their porch saying:

“The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes. The response time of a .357 is 14 hundred feet per second.”

So they knew that what they let their 4-year old ‘find and play with’, there was no going back from. So, no there was no accident. The parents murdered their own child by not taking adequate safety precautions with their firearms. They should be arrested, tried and convicted of murder. I am not sure I do not consider this premeditated murder even.

If you cannot store a lethal weapon in such a manner that your child cannot get access to it, and that child shoots another person, you should go to jail for murder.

 
%d bloggers like this: