Margarita
2yr ago
i thinkI'd say a couple things to that. Gender roles may be real, but they can be somewhat arbitrary, and tend to be based on sex anyhow. But I think the very arbitraryness of gender roles in different places and times makes me utterly confused about why one's gender identity should matter to me at all, more than, going with the genre comparison, whether you like country music or rock or blues. it's something to know about you, I guess, but there's no need to give it any more attention than that.
On the other hand, sex matters a lot. It matters biologically, medically, it has for most of history mattered legally as well. Rights have historically been granted or denied on the basis of sex. Similarly, from the concept of sex derives the concept of sexual orientation. Most people's orientation is towards the opposite sex, but there are some people whose sexual orientation is towards those of the same sex or towards both sexes. Genderists will thus say that a lesbian is someone who is attracted to people who "identify as female." Meanwhile, lesbians say no, they are attracted to people of the female sex only, and are not attracted to men no matter how men self-identify. And then they get accused of being transphobic by people who want to erase the concept of sex and replace it with this concept of gender.
Margarita
2yr ago
It seems like we have enough evidence now though to finally state that, in fact, Self-ID is not the best choice, it's harmful and unjust. The only way at this point for activists to try to argue for Self-ID is to cite marginal benefits while excusing massive harms. And if that's the standard, than anyone can play that game, nothing's off limits.
Margarita
2yr ago
It's not an asthetic that appeals to me at all. But while it really doesn't resonate with me stylistically or compositionally, I do like that there is a very pronounced style - a Basquiat looks like a Basquiat to me, in the same way a Picasso just looks like a Picasso. And I like that there is a strong point of view and that comes across in a very direct way.
Margarita
2yr ago
I don't read her as believing that anyone should have been fired. That's probably the worst possiblle way to diversify - scapegoating and targeting someone, largely for their race is gross. Especially when there were so many better and non-racist options available. They have an obscene endowment, and in that moment, donors would likely have been all too wiling to fund even more if it was targeted toward increasing the diversity of staff, or artists whose works are collected and exhibited.
I think she's just making clear - lest she be the next one targeted - that calls for more inclusivity aren't the problem.
It does seem like the director was a little too trusting. The article does suggest that the guest curator had a "long-standing pattern of excoriating others who were interested in Defacement or Basquiat, even when they sought out her opinion." A little more due diligence probably could have avoided the situation all together. .
Margarita
2yr ago
How do you underfeed the person who is doing the shopping and the cooking to begin with? Or if you go back to the farm, the person who is cooking the stew over the hearth, and gathering the eggs and milking the cow and making the bread and canning the vegetables, etc.? If you're the farmer or the cooper or the smithy, you can't stand in your kitchen all day to make sure she's not eating. She'll go pick apples off the tree and berries off the vine and make herself a whole damn pie if she wants to.
Margarita
2yr ago
A lot of gender critical feminists would say that they're at the root of the issue.
Sex is not a social construct, but that gender is. Once upon a time wearing powdered wigs might have beeen manly, so too wearing tights, or heeled shoes that today we'd definitely see as looking more feminine. If you met a Leslie or a Sam a hundred years ago, you would probably be meeting a man, not necessarily true today. Some of what we think of as masculine or feminine is true for our culture in our time, but not necessarily for all cultures in all times.
Gender critical feminists tend to believe that sex is real and important but that gendered assumptions and gender roles are what is problematic. And then you would have more conservative feminists who agree that sex is important, but don't really have a problem with gender and gender roles, so long as there is no discrimination placed on women in society. I think gender critical women would say you can't have your cake and eat it too - that as long as there are different gender roles for men and women you will have discrimination, and conservatives would probably disagree that that is a foregone conclusion, and that gender roles serve no benefit to girls and women. Gender criticals would argue what about lesbians and others who might defy gender roles, and find those roles stifling? More conservative feminists would argue that's fine, they can certainly do their own thing but if those roles seem comfortable for the majority of people, it doesn't seem to make sense to abolish them.
Mostly, these people are trying to put aside their differences right now to oppose those who demand we pretend that sex itself is not real, that sex is what is actually the social construct, while gender is what is real, biological and unchangeable.
Margarita
2yr ago
I hate it too for the same reasons, and I appreciate men who are willing to support female athletes and not patronize them.
Anyone remember the Battle of the Sexes? Serena Williams, and I think Venus too played far lower ranked male tennis players - and lost decisively.
What would those who deny biology matters have to say about that? She just lacked equal opportunities to men? Not if you know her history. Come on, she was once the Number 1 ranked woman in the world. That she just doesn't try her best? Please.
Martina Navratalova has been very outspoken on these issues as well. Exceptional female athletes with loads of experience are speaking, but non-athletes with agendas just plain aren't listening.
Women's sports ought to be thought of not as a lesser version of men's sports, but as similar yet different sports in their own right. In women's sports rules and uniforms and equipment,etc. are all designed around women's bodies, just as men's are for their own sport. That's as it should be.
Margarita
2yr ago
Incidentally, there is a defense attorney on YouTube who goes by natalielawyerchick who takes an interest in sovereign citizen cases and will react to videos of SovCits arguing in court, and explaining what they're arguing vs. what the law actually is. It's a fascinating little rabbit hole to go down.
Margarita
2yr ago
That really doesn't explain it. Education in America has always been that way. Teaching schoolchildren was at one time one of the few professional opportunities open to women, provided they were unmarried. Women have always played a very large role in teaching, that's not a new thing.
Margarita
2yr ago
That's part of it, but a lot more of it is just the straightforward result of modernization.
Ocracoke Island is a good example.
The Outer Banks were fairly isolated until about 80 years ago. The Wright Brothers had plenty of room to try out their aviation experiment there, but today the area around their flight path is highly developed. But Ocracroke Island, which is a bit further south is one of those places that I think is still only accessible by ferry. It has a unique dialect, speakers are known colloquially as "High Tiders", and their accent sounds like British Isles with some Southern sprinkled in.
These early American immigrants lived in a community that was fairly isolated from the mainland for centuries and developed its own culture. I have always loved the stories of several of these Carolina island communities who celebrated 'Old Christmas', basically because they ignored the memo about shifting over to the Gregorian calendar in 1752. But then you get radio, television, and infrastructure that brings the barrier islands in closer contact with mainland people and culture. Today, fewer than 200 people on Ocracroke still speak the High Tider dialect, and the island is increasingly populated by 'dingbatters' or outsiders.
It's the same phenomenon playing out in black southern island communities that speak Gullah.
On the other hand, there are places in Appalachia where it works pretty much as described - JD Vance goes Ivy Leauge and learns to say "wash" not "warsh" and "toilet" not "towlet", etc. But within these communities themselves, all of which also have radio and television and infrastructure, etc., it does seem that the areas themselves remain somewhat isolated, with fewer migrants or tourists, and that differences persist.
Margarita
2yr ago
I think there's a lot you can say.
What was the position of minorities in the sixties? Of women? Of young men facing potentially being drafted to fight in Vietnam?
The world these young people were protesting against was so different from the one we live in today. i think that's the most major factor.
I don't know if music is 'too corporate' now, we'll call that the Lester Bangs theory, that rock/pop/etc. is now just an "industry of cool." Probably plays a part. Pink came out with "What About Us?" in 2017, I think that could be called something in the range of a protest song. Clapton made "This Has Got To Stop" during the pandemic...which has less than 1 percent of the views that Pink's song has. So I guess if you're going to write a protest song, be young and stay cool.
Margarita
2yr ago
Thanks for this writeup. I've been following the Tribunal Tweets account periodically over the course of this case - and others. I'm a big law nerd and always posting about SCOTUS here when they're relevant, so from that perspective it's fun for me to be kind of an observer and see the differences in a system outside my own.
But it's not all fun - as a woman I do feel this broader sex vs. gender debate has real implications for me and others, even if this specific case will not affect me in any way. I came away with the impression that the case against LGBA seemed pretty weak overall, and they put on a good defense. I was particularly struck by some of the exchanges like the one you highlighted. But, again I'm an outsider so it's interesting to hear you saw it similarly.
What I'm not clear on is to what extent the ruling here, whatever it may end up being, will or will not set a precedent that effects other charities, and if so how much that will play into the thinking in the decision. So if anyone has any insight on that end, I'd appreciate it.
Margarita
2yr ago
I think this started as a way to defend against the argument that saying anyone can just identify into womanhood makes the term meaningless. You have changed the definition to the point where women as a sex class can be denied to even exist.
So the response was kind of a muddy-the-waters approach, to accuse back in response, but it really doesn't make sense.
Margarita
2yr ago
All of which just seems like it makes the word 'transphobia' itself, when used this way, utterly meaningless.
Margarita
2yr ago
We're now one month away from the opening of the new Supreme Court term, and hopefully the summer break has allowed tensions around the last term to cool down somewhat.
The test of that, I think, will be a lightning rod of a case coming up early in the term, regarding affirmative action. But actually, it's two cases, Harvard, the one everyone talks about, and UNC, both on Halloween. I haven't paid as much attention to the UNC case, but I finally bothered to read some of the amicus briefs yesterday and one stood out because it comes at the issue in a way that's less talked about than the issue with Harvard's diversity "tips" or low personality scores for Asian students.
The brief is filed on behalf of a handful of former US Dept. of Ed. officials who served under Betsy DeVos in the previous administration. The brief recounts the history of some of the changes made during the Obama administration:
Before Amici’s tenure in OCR, the Obama Administration actively encouraged schools to adopt race-conscious policies, providing schools with suggestions and guidelines regarding race-conscious scholarships, student retention, mentoring, andelsewise. In 2018, OCR withdrew most of the Obama-era guidance on these topics, and in 2020 and 2021,issued other guidance and information on the limited ability for schools to use race under Title VI. Now, since January 2021, the Biden Administration has already undone much of that work, which offered information regarding the limited lawful use of race in admissions, grading, discipline, and other arenas. In short, existing case law on the issue of diversity has given rise to widely divergent views of the permissible scope of the use of race, and subjects students and schools to legal “whiplash” on this topic. In the meantime, many schools continue to expand their use of race-conscious policies, sometimes under the guise of “diversity” and “equity” as an all-purpose exception to Title VI.
So the Obama Administration makes a bunch of changes in 2011, then the Trump administration rescinds those in 2018 and issues entirely different guidance. The brief describes some of the complaints they dealt with and how they responded. No, you can't reopen schools following the pandemic to only black and brown kids in order to reduce in-person class size and leave white kids at home. No, you can't have segregated dorms, etc. Then the Biden admin - on Day 1 - rescinds all the Trump-era guidance. So a major argument they're making is that this goes beyond affirmative action in admissions - or at least that it should. They're inviting the court to say in what ways race can and cannot be used in a whole host of other circumstances relating to education as well. They're also saying that when every few years the guidance changes when the party in power changes, and the Department sometimes winds up giving diametrically opposite guidance, clearly such wildly different interpretations mean there needs to be some clarification from the Court on when the use of race is and is not permissible.
The actual question before the Court is narrower, but I can see where this argument about the instability might have an audience among at least some of the justices.
I guess the question is, given the very large reaction to Dobbs, if the Court were inclined to overturn Grutter, will that scare them off? Or is there a chance they actually go farther and weigh in on the culture war around the use of race in non-admissions related education policy? If the Court were to demand a more race-neutral approach to education does that take some of the heat out of the culture war, the way Obergefell did in re: gay marriage, or does it trigger more anger, more calls for court packing, etc?
Most people use the scientific definition of male and female as sexually dimorphic species. Some use a religious context, God having made male and female to compliment one another.
This new definition comes from power. I declare an X can now be a Y if Power says so.
Rachel Dolezal had at least as good of an argument for being black as any man ever had to declare himself a woman.
She grew up with black siblings, immersed herself in black culture, went to an HBCU, married a black man, had black sons, and began living in the world as a black woman, tanning her skin, learning to braid her hair, etc. She got everything good and bad that came from living as a black woman in society.
Power has decided that one is desirable and the other undesirable. Not logic or science or the arc of history.
With your men vs. non-men argument, I'm sure you'll agree that a white Scottish bagpiper in a kilt who got off the boat five minutes ago IS a Black American descendant of slavery. If he identifies as one, then he always was one.
It's not his fault we're still laboring under regressive notions that one's ancestry is linear and genetic. Ancestry is fluid! Foster parents exist, which proves parenting isn't necessarily related to genes. And of course, "black" isn't a real thing either: there are some 'black' people with lighter skin than some 'white' people! And again, ancestry is fluid! And it's not about culture. That's fluid too! There are black ballet dancers, white rappers, nothing we think 'belongs' to a race or a culture holds true in all cases. "Scottish" and "American" also have unclear boundaries. Once we didn't think of Hawaii as being in America - now we do! "Slavery" doesn't mean just American slavery - it can mean many different things throughout history. And historical records aren't always accurate and only go back so far.
Anyone can do the "define woman" or "define a true Scotsman" gallop. But that only works in a world where nothing means anything. In that world I can state with certainty that your post was not at all related to sex or gender but was actually a glowing review of Taylor Swift's new album, because the words you wrote are merely an arrangement of symbols that society has arbitrarily assigned certain sounds and meanings, and just ignore your arguments enitrely.
More options
Context Copy link