Call Out Culture Caconophy of Calumny

[LDAHL]

I'm no stranger to jargon. I have done time in the military, corporations and government. I have been behind the power curve. I have de-essentialized paradigms. I have opened my kimono for the stakeholder community. But I have never encountered a philological paroxysm like this academic attacking another's essay:

"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."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...social-justice

I have to admit I required some help in understanding exactly what heresies were being committed here. I sort of hope the people spinning word salads like this aren't doing it on the taxpayer's dime.

[JaneV2.0]

I admire your willingness to wade through difficult prose; I generally avoid it as I do rhubarb.

I would probably argue this point: "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." Or at least ask for clarification.

I've found that academics have their own--apparently deliberately obscure--jargon. When I worked as a technical editor for a local college, I was asked to edit something a multiply-degreed colleague had written. To call it turgid would be charitable. Fortunately, it wasn't part of my job description to do so, so I politely declined.

[LDAHL]

I admire your willingness to wade through difficult prose; I generally avoid it as I do rhubarb.

I would probably argue this point: "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." Or at least ask for clarification.

I've found that academics have their own--apparently deliberately obscure--jargon. When I worked as a technical editor for a local college, I was asked to edit something a multiply-degreed colleague had written. To call it turgid would be charitable. Fortunately, it wasn't part of my job description to do so, so I politely declined.

There was a famous case about twenty years ago, where a physicist managed to publish a paper consisting of complete gibberish. I wish I could remember his name.

As to the point you make on Mtf, I would agree that if you accept that all males are privileged and that X was formally male, then you have to accept that X was formally privileged.

[iris lilies]

There was a famous case about twenty years ago, where a physicist managed to publish a paper consisting of complete gibberish. I wish I could remember his name....

There are more than one, according to this article

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te..._journals.html

[ApatheticNoMore]

As to the point you make on Mtf, I would agree that if you accept that all males are privileged and that X was formally male, then you have to accept that X was formally privileged.

yea one would have to define it, but maybe it's all about context if one has read dozens of such papers (much is about context afterall, one can't necessarily dive deeply into the most difficult philosophy book without having the background in philosophy either - not everything is for the lay public with no background in the subject).

I have heard there was a study that mtf transsexuals incomes go DOWN after they transition to females, so if true that's a data point (if we are defining privilege by earnings). But what type of privilege they had before is hard to disentangle.