Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Another new mob's reign in the name of racial justice

This round, we have Black Lives Matter's turn of having its supposedly noble cause violently hijacked and appropriated by a bunch of People of Color college kids demanding no homework. See that insane ultra-liberal politically correct academic being held captive by the new mob at Evergreen State College in the video. Clearly an incompetent white man who has absolutely no idea how to teach multiracial students.

Oh, don't miss out his "gratitude" to "thank" the mob. What a fucking moron! Here is the whole story.

(from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/29/evergreen-state-college-president-expresses-gratit/)

Evergreen State College president expresses ‘gratitude’ for students who took over campus
 - The Washington Times - Monday, May 29, 2017
The president of Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, says he is “grateful” for the “passion and courage” demonstrated by a mob of students that has taken over his campus and driven a professor to teach off campus due to concerns for his safety.
In a speech delivered May 26 responding to student demands, college President George S. Bridgessaid he is “grateful to the courageous students who have voiced their concerns” about discrimination on campus.
“Let me reiterate my gratitude for the passion and courage you have shown me and others,” Mr. Bridges said in his remarks, as reported by student newspaper The Cooper Point Journal. “I want every one of you to feel safe on this campus and be able to learn in a supportive environment free from discrimination or intimidation.”
The speech began: “I’m George Bridges, I use he/him pronouns.”
The president’s statement comes after a week of protests at the college, during which students have shouted down and cursed at faculty and administrators who show insufficient passion for social justice.
One professor targeted by protesters, Bret Weinstein, was told by campus police to hold his classes off of campus out of fear for his safety.
The biology professor wrote an email in March saying he would not participate in a no-whites “Day of Absence” at Evergreen.
“You may take this letter as a formal protest of this year’s structure, and you may assume I will be on campus during the Day of Absence,” Mr. Weinstein wrote in the email. “On a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.”
That missive, and others he had written criticizing a proposal to increase the role of race in faculty hiring, later became public and prompted about 50 students to surround and berate Mr. Weinstein outside of his classroom May 23.

In an interview Friday on Fox News, Mr. Weinstein said students have threatened violence if their demands are not met.
New video also has surfaced showing the student protests at Evergreen last week. The footage depicts students shouting and cursing at Mr. Bridges at a May 23 meeting.
“Why is it all these black women and femmes doing all this emotional labor in this space?” one student shouts. “These white-a— faculty members need to be holding him and him and all these people accountable!”
Another student says: “I said, I’m tired of white people talking about what black and brown people need. You don’t know.”
Mr. Bridges tries to answer, “I’m just trying to respond—”
“Stop giggling and laughing every time we say something!” another student yells at the school president.
He tries to respond, “I am not giggling—I’m not laughing at you.”
“That’s how whiteness works!” another Evergreen student yells at Mr. Bridges, who is white. “Whiteness is the most violent f–ing system to ever breathe!”
That footage came at the end of a May 23 meeting between the administration and students. Much of the more damaging footage was not included in initial videos posted to social media by the students.
The video also appears to be the one students alleged was “stolen by white supremacists and edited to expose and ridicule the students and staff.” In their demands last week, students ordered it be “taken down by this administration by this Friday.”
In his address — delivered just three days after the meeting depicted in the video — Mr. Bridges submitted to most of the students’ demands.
First, he agreed to make the student conduct code a “living document that will adapt over time in order to serve evolving student needs.”
“Students will work on the code with staff over the summer, as well as work on other strategic initiatives,” he said. “Students will be paid for their labor.”
In response to a demand that Mr. Weinstein and various staff be fired, Mr. Bridges said the school “will not fire any employees in response to a request” but would conduct investigations.
He also promised to hire a full-time affirmative action and equal opportunity officer to investigate claims of discrimination, and said outside investigators would be brought on if necessary.
In response to a third demand, Mr. Bridges said the administration would expand annual training for campus police to address “anti-black racism, de-escalation, minimizing use of force, serving trans and queer students, sexual assault response and responding to the access of special needs students with disabilities.”
Faculty member Grace Huerta then read a statement saying professors are committed to imposing “annual mandatory training for all faculty beginning in the fall of 2017” to cover “subjects including but not limited to institutional racism, and the needs of students of color, LGBTQIA students, undocumented students, victims of sexual assault, and students with disabilities.”
Mr. Bridges also promised, per the demands, to build a new equity center.
According to the school’s website, Evergreen already boasts four such centers: The Longhouse Education and Cultural Center, the First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services, the Trans & Queer Center and the Veterans Resources Center.
The president said students will have final say over design plans for the new center and will be paid to consult on its creation.
Still responding to the demands, Mr. Bridges promised to hire full-time coordinators to oversee the Trans & Queer Center and to support undocumented students.
He also told students that the administration is not considering any punitive measures in response to the demonstrations.
“As of today, we’re not contemplating any action associated with the demonstrations of the last two weeks, but we can’t control what complaints we might receive,” he said. “If we receive complaints, we’ll need to follow up on them.”
Mr. Bridges concluded his remarks by expressing his “gratitude” for the “passion and courage” demonstrated by the students.
“I welcome your questions,” he said. “I hope we can break bread together and continue the conversation informally.”

(Repost) Paris mayor calls for ban on black feminist festival

The exclusively Black or (born) female social space is invaded by politically correct ultra-liberal mob around the world.

from (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nyansapo-festival-paris-mayor-calls-ban-black-feminist-event-that-prohibits-whites-1623736)
Anne Hidalgo has threatened to sue the organisers for discrimination as it excludes white people.
The mayor of Paris is seeking to ban a black feminist festival in the city on the grounds of it being discriminatory.

Anne Hidalgo said that the Nyansapo Festival, which dubbed itself as an event rooted in black feminism, excludes white people. Hidalgo has condemned the festival and tweeted: "I am asking for this festival to be banned."

The Socialist city council leader also said that she reserved the right "to prosecute the organisers for discrimination".

The Nyansapo Festival is scheduled to run between 28 and 30 July at a cultural centre in the capital city of France.

Hidalgo's comments came after the organisers – the Mwasi feminist association – mentioned on its website that 80% of the venue would be reserved for black women.

It added that black people irrespective of gender would be allowed in another area, while a third area would be open to all.

Some French anti-racism organisations have also condemned the festival, calling it a "mistake".

SOS Racisme described the event "an abomination" and said it "wallows in ethnic separation", while Licra, the International League against Racism and Antisemitism, said: "Rosa Parks would be turning in her grave".

The regional head of Marine Le Pen's National Front party, Wallerand de Saint-Just, had also questioned the mayor and asked her to explain how the city was fine with an event that was "promoting a concept that is blatantly racist and anti-republican".

Police prefect Michel Delpuech said in a statement that police had not been informed about the upcoming event by Sunday (28 May) evening. But he added that the police "would ensure the rigorous compliance of the laws, values, and principles of the republic".

But the outrage has left the organisers of the event disheartened.

The cultural centre La Generale, where the event was to be hosted, and the Mwasi feminist association have said that they were the "target of a disinformation campaign and of 'fake news' orchestrated by the foulest far right".

"We are saddened to see certain antiracist associations letting them be manipulated like this."

(Repost) IF THIS IS FEMINISM… it's been hijacked by the thought police

This is what a feminist sounds like.

(from http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/if-this-is-feminism-its-been-hijacked-by-the-thought-police/)


The dust-up on social media over Rebecca Tuvel’s article, “In Defense of Transracialism” published in Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, has given a new meaning to the public/private split central to the history of feminism. For decades, feminists have argued the personal is political, and explored the politics of our private lives. The split between what people wrote to both Rebecca Tuvel and to me in private, and what they felt compelled to say in public is one indication that the explosion of personal insults and vicious attacks on social media is symptomatic of something much bigger than the actual issues discussed in Tuvel’s article. In private messages, some people commiserated, expressed support, and apologized for what was happening and for not going public with their support. As one academic wrote to me in a private message, “sorry I’m not saying this publicly (I have no interest in battling the mean girls on Facebook) but fwiw it’s totally obvious to me that you haven’t been committing acts of violence against marginalized scholars.” Later, this same scholar wrote, again in private, saying Tuvel’s article is “a tight piece of philosophy” that makes clear that the position that “transgender is totally legit, [and] transracial is not—can only be justified using convoluted essentialist metaphysics. I will write to her privately and tell her so.” Others went further and supported Tuvel in private while actually attacking her in public. In private messages, these people apologized for what she must be going through, while in public they fanned the flames of hatred and bile on social media. The question is, why did so many scholars, especially feminists, express one sentiment behind closed doors and another out in the open? Why were so many others afraid to say anything in public?
For those lucky readers who didn’t follow the nasty attacks on social media, a bit of background is in order. To put it all too simply, in her Hypatia article, Tuvel claimed that the very public cases of Rachel Dolezal’s transracial transition and Caitlyn Jenner’s transgender transition operate according to a similar logic when it comes to thinking about identity and identity politics. Tuvel argued in favor of both transgender and transracial identities, as well as for a more fluid conception of identity more generally. In subsequent responses to her critics, Tuvel has said her article was a response to the media sentiment that transgender identity is socially acceptable (Jenner was featured on the cover of Vanity Fair, was a runner-up for Time magazine’s “Person of the Year”, and was named woman of the year by Glamour magazine), while transracial identity is taboo (Dolezal was fired from her job at the NAACP and scorned in the media).
Last week, a flurry of outrage stormed through social media calling the article “wack shit,” “crap,” “offensive,” “violent,” and more. And its author was called “transphobic,” “racist,” “crazy,” “stupid,” and worse. Many were (and still are) calling for a retraction of the article and an apology from Tuvel. Some scholars associated with the journal posted condemnations of the article and issued apologies for it. Eventually, a group of associate editors, spearheaded by Cressida Heyes, whose work is criticized in the article, published an official condemnation of the piece indicating that the journal had made a mistake in publishing it, which of course, just makes the journal look bad. The article was vetted by reviewers and editors, and published, after all.
The feeding frenzy in response to Tuvel’s article couldn’t have happened without social media. The viciousness of the attacks was fueled by the mob mentality of Facebook. Dissenters, even those who just wanted a civil discussion of the issue, were shut down immediately or afraid to voice their opinions in public. Some who in private were sympathetic to Tuvel, felt compelled to join in the attacking mob. The thought police were in full force. Both Tuvel and the journal were under pressure to retract the article and apologize. In a private message to me, one of my academic friends said one editor’s Facebook apology for publishing such an “offensive” article, “sounded like something ISIS makes its captors read in a hostage video before beheading them.” Joking aside, there was (and still is) tremendous pressure to condemn Tuvel and her article. Some who joined in the protests later admitted in private that they hadn’t even read the article. And at least one person who signed a petition demanding that Hypatia retract the text in question, later, when the media tides were turning, wanted to remove her signature from the damning letter. I wonder how many of those who signed that letter had actually read the article. Just this morning, I received a text from someone I respect, lamenting the cruelty on social media, but telling me she was sure she would disagree with the article and find it offensive, even though she hadn’t yet read it.
I have to admit, I didn’t want to enter the Facebook shit-storm and face the wrath of the “mean girls” either. I felt the need to defend Rebecca Tuvel not only because she is a friend and former Ph.D. student of mine, but also because I respect her work, which is always well argued—whether or not you agree with it—and I found her arguments compelling. I summoned up the courage and entered the fray suggesting only that Hypatia invite critical responses to the article. This suggestion was met with ridicule and derision. I then asked critics to respond with philosophical arguments rather than lobbing insults, which was met with claims that I was doing “violence” to marginalized scholars.
The most vocal figures on social media claimed they were harmed, even traumatized, by Tuvel’s article, and by my defense of its right to exist. Some said that Tuvel’s article harmed them, and I was doing violence to them, even triggering PTSD, just by calling for an open discussion of, and debate over, the arguments in the article. While I readily agree that words can do harm and that hate speech exists, my call for philosophical engagement with Tuvel’s article does not constitute harmful speech. In fact, if an essay that openly supports trans identity does violence, and defense of open debate causes PTSD, then by which name should we call the physical violence inflicted on trans people and others daily? What of the PTSD caused by domestic violence, rape, and hate crimes? If an essay written by a young feminist scholar in support of trans rights is violent and harmful, then haven’t we leveled all violence such that everything has become swept up by it, and the very notion of violence has lost its meaning? Certainly, at the very least, we need to distinguish between levels of violence. One Facebook critic called my remarks “unforgivable,” seemingly putting them on par with crimes against humanity. At this point in the social media blowout, (until the Daily Nous published a defense of the article, which elicited support from all sides) I seemed to be the only one publicly defending Tuvel, in spite of the private support she received from folks too afraid to go public.
Through every medium imaginable, senior feminist scholars were pressuring, even threatening, Tuvel that she wouldn’t get tenure and her career would be ruined if she didn’t retract her article. When I called out the worst insulters for threatening an untenured junior feminist, they claimed they were the victims here not her. I wonder. Tuvel’s article in support of transgender and transracial identities didn’t threaten anyone, and didn’t jeopardize anyone’s career. Whereas those calling for a retraction were doing just that to a junior woman in a field, philosophy, nearly 80% of which is still populated by men and which is still resistant to feminism. A senior feminist philosopher called to warn Tuvel that she should be appealing to the “right people” if she wanted to get tenure and warned her not to publish her book on this topic or it would ruin her career and mark her as “all that is wrong with white feminism.”
Part of the problem with the response to Tuvel’s article is that some seem to feel that they are the only ones who have the legitimate right to talk about certain topics. At best, this is identity politics run amok; at worst it is a turf war. Indeed, it leads to a kind of academic Selfie culture where all we can do is take pictures of ourselves and never consider the lives of others. Another criticism of Tuvel’s article is that it didn’t cite enough trans scholarship or philosophy of race. While this may be true, it doesn’t defeat her argument. Apparently, Tuvel’s worst offense was the “deadnaming” of Caitlyn Jenner. Deadnaming is using a trans person’s birth name instead of their chosen name, which can do harm when outing a person as trans, or when that person considers their old self or old name “dead.” I was fiercely attacked on Facebook for pointing out that Jenner is a public figure, a Reality TV star, who doesn’t reject deadnaming herself in her book: “Transgender guidelines suggest that I no longer be referred to as Bruce in any circumstance. Here are my guidelines: I will refer to the name Bruce when I think it appropriate. Bruce existed for sixty-five years, and Caitlyn is just going on her second birthday. That’s the reality.” The irony is that some of the same people publicly disparaging Tuvel for deadnaming Jenner, privately admitted that they’d never heard the word “deadnaming” before the Facebook frenzy. Call it a teachable moment.
In response to my comments on social media about philosophical engagement, some argued it was unnecessary because the issues raised in Tuvel’s article were discussed “decades ago.” That seems unlikely given that the main theme in Tuvel’s article was the 2015 media response to Jenner and Dolezal. Even so, it’s not harmful to ask to see those arguments applied specifically to Tuvel’s article. To the contrary, it should give scholars an opportunity to renew their positions with more vigor, especially given the current spotlight on Tuvel’s essay. Some suggest they don’t want to “dignify” the article with a response. They’d rather just express their outrage at its very existence. My point here isn’t to defend the arguments in Tuvel’s article, but rather to defend the possibility of an open dialogue and debate, and to try to diagnose the outraged response to that idea—the idea upon which the discipline of philosophy, and the academy more generally, if not also democracy itself, are based.
We live in an era of outrage—let’s call it the Trump era. That’s how Trump got elected, by voicing outrage. His most ardent disciples uncritically and unthinkingly believe everything he says because it is expressed with anger and zest. Civility is suspected of being “political,” which has become a dirty word. It’s hard to argue with outrage, and that’s precisely the problem. Outrage has become the new truth. At one extreme, we have Trump and his supporters proudly embracing political incorrectness, and at the other, we have the political correctness police calling for censorship of a scholarly article written by someone working for social justice. On both sides, we have virulent intolerance fueled by hatred. The feminist thought police are the flip side of the alternative facts machine. And both are threats to the open dialogue that is so vital for critical thought inside and outside the academy.
What I find most distressing about the hostile attacks against Tuvel, the article, and my defense of an open dialogue about it, is that there are people and institutions out there that are trying to deny rights to women, especially trans women and women of color. Dissent and debate allow feminism—and scholarship more generally—to flourish and advance, while insults and censorship are the tools of those who would shut us down. In this battle, feminists embracing inclusivity are not the enemy. Far from it. The real enemy is our culture of displaced outrage and its symptoms, namely the thought police and the alternative facts machine. Let’s have critical debate and philosophical arguments instead of cyber-shaming and personal insults. 

When trans and black meet (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie took the heat)

Adichie was recently coined transphobic (together with more and more feminists) after saying the following in an interview.

“So, when people talk about , you know, ‘Are trans-women women?’ My feeling is trans-women are trans-women. I think the whole problem of gender in the world is about our experiences, it’s not about how we wear our hair, or whether we have a vagina or penis, it’s about the way the world treats us. 
And I think if you lived in the world as a man, with the privileges that the world accords to men, and then sort of changed, switched gender, it’s difficult for me to accept that then we can equate to your experience with the experience of a woman who has lived from the beginning in the world as a woman, and who has not been accorded those privileges that men are.
And so, I think there has to be…And this is not of course to say, this is…I am saying this also with, sort of, a certainty that transgender people should be allowed to be.
But I don’t think it’s good thing to conflate everything into one. I don’t think it’s a good thing to talk about women’s issues being exactly the same as the issues of trans-women, because I don’t think that’s true.”
After all the ungrounded harassment, even as the most popular African black feminist leftist figure in the Western world, she clarified what she meant on Facebook. So far, no trans forgave her, according to the over 10,000 comments. 

Because I have been the subject of much hostility for standing up for LGBTQ rights in Nigeria, I found myself being very defensive at being labeled 'trans phobic.' My first thought was – how could anyone think that?  
I didn't like that version of myself. It felt like a white person saying 'I'm not racist, I supported civil rights.' 
Because the truth is that I do think one can be trans phobic while generally supporting LGBTQ rights. 
And so I want to put my defensiveness aside and clarify my thoughts. To make sure that I am fully understood. 
I said, in an interview, that trans women are trans women, that they are people who, having been born male, benefited from the privileges that the world affords men, and that we should not say that the experience of women born female is the same as the experience of trans women. 
This upset many people, and I consider their concerns to be valid. I realize that I occupy this strange position of being a ‘voice’ for gender rights and so there is an automatic import to my words. 
I think the impulse to say that trans women are women just like women born female are women comes from a need to make trans issues mainstream. Because by making them mainstream, we might reduce the many oppressions they experience. 
But it feels disingenuous to me. The intent is a good one but the strategy feels untrue. Diversity does not have to mean division. 
Because we can oppose violence against trans women while also acknowledging differences. Because we should be able to acknowledge differences while also being supportive. Because we do not have to insist, in the name of being supportive, that everything is the same. Because we run the risk of reducing gender to a single, essentialist thing. 
Perhaps I should have said trans women are trans women and cis women are cis women and all are women. Except that 'cis' is not an organic part of my vocabulary. And would probably not be understood by a majority of people. Because saying ‘trans’ and ‘cis’ acknowledges that there is a distinction between women born female and women who transition, without elevating one or the other, which was my point. 
I have and will continue to stand up for the rights of transgender people. Not merely because of the violence they experience but because they are equal human beings deserving to be what they are. 
I see how my saying that we should not conflate the gender experiences of trans women with that of women born female could appear as if I was suggesting that one experience is more important than the other. Or that the experiences of trans women are less valid than those of women born female. I do not think so at all – I know that trans women can be vulnerable in ways that women born female are not. This, again, is a reason to not deny the differences. 
Why does this even matter? 
Because at issue is gender. 
Gender is a problem not because of how we look or how we identify or how we feel but because of how the world treats us. 
Girls are socialized in ways that are harmful to their sense of self – to reduce themselves, to cater to the egos of men, to think of their bodies as repositories of shame. As adult women, many struggle to overcome, to unlearn, much of that social conditioning. 
A trans woman is a person born male and a person who, before transitioning, was treated as male by the world. Which means that they experienced the privileges that the world accords men. This does not dismiss the pain of gender confusion or the difficult complexities of how they felt living in bodies not their own. 
Because the truth about societal privilege is that it isn't about how you feel. (Anti-racist white people still benefit from race privilege in the United States). It is about how the world treats you, about the subtle and not so subtle things that you internalize and absorb. 
This is not to say that trans women did not undergo difficulties as boys. But they did not undergo those particular difficulties specific to being born female, and this matters because those experiences shape how adult women born female interact with the world. 
And because to be human is to be a complex amalgam of your experiences, it is disingenuous to say that their being born male has no effect on their experience of gender as trans women. 
Of course there are individual differences. But there are always individual differences. We speak of ‘women’s issues’ knowing that while there are individual differences, the truth of human history is that women as a group have been treated as subordinate to men. And we speak of male privilege acknowledging that individual men differ but that men as a group are nevertheless accorded privileges by the world. 
I think of feminism as Feminisms. Race and class shape our experience of gender. Sexuality shapes our experience of gender. And so when I say that I think trans women are trans women, it is not to diminish or exclude trans women but to say that we cannot insist – no matter how good our intentions – that they are the same as women born female.
Nor do I think that we need to insist that both are the same. 
To acknowledge different experiences is to start to move towards more fluid – and therefore more honest and true to the real world – conceptions of gender. 
Today, the trans even downed the female Martin Luther King. Seriously, Almighty God my Redeemer, please forgive us. WTF. 

Another feminist happening (Left Forum at CUNY) shut down by trans activists

Allegedly, a workshop entitled "Misery for Profit/Who is Funding the Transgender Movement and it's impacts on the LGB," organized by Jennifer Bilek, for the Left Forum 2017 (Left Forum, Department of Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center), was cracked down by trans activists.

This is the original panel blurb. It does sound ludicrous to me, but the point is not that the panel is no good, but that the transgender people censors everything in the public space now.



The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.