4 ms·

I'm surrounded by a great many people who unequivocally side with this movement. One of their refrains is that if you are neutral, you have taken the side of th

I'm surrounded by a great many people who unequivocally side with this movement. One of their refrains is that if you are neutral, you have taken the side of the oppressor. I was raised by journalists and academics. To me, there's no question that universities must be neutral platforms and good journalism reports what's there without taking a side. But I am a straight white man from a middle-class family. A supporter of the movement will tell you that the elevation of free inquiry and free expression to "value" status, as something with intrinsic worth and deserving of protection, was a fraud perpetrated by white men to sustain their power. A good many of my acquaintances actually believe the idea that there is objective truth that you can uncover scientifically is a similar fraud, so that white male academics would have access to tools like rational arguments or pointing out logical fallacies to better oppress everyone else. To these people, the only thing that matters is the subjective "lived experience" of people who are not straight white men. Everything else can go to hell. Viewed in this light, their actions actually make perfect sense.

markbao 11y ago
Yes, very well said. I'm currently on a very activist college campus and also have many friends (and follow many people on Twitter) who side with this movement. To an extent, I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of actually being heard. There was an open letter recently from one student activism group that said that they would not protest "respectfully" because they feel that that is just another way for their voices to be suppressed, or some such. That's a hard problem. It does seem like there has been a lot of talk and not a lot of walk from the people/institutions that hold power, and if I were on the activism side, I'd also be extremely frustrated. Not related to that open letter, but this article gives a view into some of that frustration: https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6 https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-ya... What's interesting is that the closest case I can find that relates to how some of these student protestors, who seem to be mostly liberal, perceive the situation, are conservatives. In reaction to social science studies that show that, say, African-Americans are systematically disenfranchised in the country, some conservatives attack social science itself, saying that it is inherently leftist, or biased in some way, the methodology is wrong, it's not a real science, etc. Similarly, some activists, like you said, would respond to the appeals to free inquiry and free expression by attacking the 'holiness' of free inquiry and free expression. Certainly possible that that's all a fraud to elevate those in power, but they seem pretty self-evident to me, not the least because free expression and inquiry, on the whole, seem to benefit the minority rather than those in power IMO.
icanhackit 11y ago
To these people, the only thing that matters is the subjective "lived experience" of people who are not straight white men. I experienced this in a discussion several years ago with a young lesbian university student (I'm not trying to shoehorn a complex individual into a category - I'm merely adding context). She referred to me as "cis" meaning Cisgender or that my sexuality agrees with my gender. The way she used it was in the white-straight-guy sense of the term, which to translate further meant any perspective I held was probably tainted, unremarkable, and privileged. I was quite a bit older than her so that possibly added an extra layer of distrust. Getting back to Cisgender, I'd never heard the term before that point but I thought it was fascinating: that by defining people by gender and sexuality it becomes a kind of matrix. You could define yourself as a gay male sexually while possessing the gender of a female. In effect you're in a straight relationship (female and male) but really it's more granular. I actually like the idea. At least by asking about gender-sexuality matrices I was able to turn the discussion into something a bit more positive with the student. But...yeah, in those situations just ask questions. Your perspective isn't welcome.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- drdeca 11y ago
  My understanding of the topic isn't great, but I think a more common definition of "cisgender" would be something like, "with gender matching the 'sex' they were 'assigned at birth'". I don't think it's generally in terms of sexual attraction? I think "cisgender" is at least mostly (maybe completely?) synonymous with "not transgender". This is my understanding of the terminology, based mainly on tumblr posts probably.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Yep. Cis is the opposite of trans. (From the Latin, and used that way in chemistry.)
  - icanhackit 11y ago
    You're right in that cisgender is gender matching the sex they were assigned at birth. I sort of went on a tangent without fleshing it out properly. I was interested in the idea of breaking apart sexuality and gender identity but it may have sounded like I was describing cisgender later in my rant (which I earlier described poorly - sexuality was the wrong term and made the definition totally incorrect). When I mentioned matrices I was trying to describe how you could identify, gender-wise, as a male yet have the physical sex of a female and sexually identify as a homosexual (attracted to other males), which results ultimately in a (physically) male and female relationship...which could then be defined as homosexual if the (physical) male were to accept the (physical) female as transgendered and for him to identify sexually as homosexual and male gender-wise. I was hoping to illustrate if you break apart gender identity, physical sex, and sexuality you can come up with combinations that are best explained in a matrix or grid (two dimensions) because linear descriptions can seem convoluted.
xlm1717 11y ago
I don't get it. Why go to a University then? It used to be they went to get access to those tools, rational arguments and pointing out logical fallacies. Now it's... have a party for four years and then go back home to your parents?

markbao 11y ago

Yes, very well said. I'm currently on a very activist college campus and also have many friends (and follow many people on Twitter) who side with this movement. To an extent, I'm sympathetic to the difficulty of actually being heard. There was an open letter recently from one student activism group that said that they would not protest "respectfully" because they feel that that is just another way for their voices to be suppressed, or some such. That's a hard problem. It does seem like there has been a lot of talk and not a lot of walk from the people/institutions that hold power, and if I were on the activism side, I'd also be extremely frustrated. Not related to that open letter, but this article gives a view into some of that frustration: https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-yale-6bdbbeeb57a6 https://medium.com/@aaronzlewis/what-s-really-going-on-at-ya... What's interesting is that the closest case I can find that relates to how some of these student protestors, who seem to be mostly liberal, perceive the situation, are conservatives. In reaction to social science studies that show that, say, African-Americans are systematically disenfranchised in the country, some conservatives attack social science itself, saying that it is inherently leftist, or biased in some way, the methodology is wrong, it's not a real science, etc. Similarly, some activists, like you said, would respond to the appeals to free inquiry and free expression by attacking the 'holiness' of free inquiry and free expression. Certainly possible that that's all a fraud to elevate those in power, but they seem pretty self-evident to me, not the least because free expression and inquiry, on the whole, seem to benefit the minority rather than those in power IMO.

icanhackit 11y ago

To these people, the only thing that matters is the subjective "lived experience" of people who are not straight white men. I experienced this in a discussion several years ago with a young lesbian university student (I'm not trying to shoehorn a complex individual into a category - I'm merely adding context). She referred to me as "cis" meaning Cisgender or that my sexuality agrees with my gender. The way she used it was in the white-straight-guy sense of the term, which to translate further meant any perspective I held was probably tainted, unremarkable, and privileged. I was quite a bit older than her so that possibly added an extra layer of distrust. Getting back to Cisgender, I'd never heard the term before that point but I thought it was fascinating: that by defining people by gender and sexuality it becomes a kind of matrix. You could define yourself as a gay male sexually while possessing the gender of a female. In effect you're in a straight relationship (female and male) but really it's more granular. I actually like the idea. At least by asking about gender-sexuality matrices I was able to turn the discussion into something a bit more positive with the student. But...yeah, in those situations just ask questions. Your perspective isn't welcome.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
drdeca 11y ago
My understanding of the topic isn't great, but I think a more common definition of "cisgender" would be something like, "with gender matching the 'sex' they were 'assigned at birth'". I don't think it's generally in terms of sexual attraction? I think "cisgender" is at least mostly (maybe completely?) synonymous with "not transgender". This is my understanding of the terminology, based mainly on tumblr posts probably.
- superuser2 11y ago
  Yep. Cis is the opposite of trans. (From the Latin, and used that way in chemistry.)
- icanhackit 11y ago
  You're right in that cisgender is gender matching the sex they were assigned at birth. I sort of went on a tangent without fleshing it out properly. I was interested in the idea of breaking apart sexuality and gender identity but it may have sounded like I was describing cisgender later in my rant (which I earlier described poorly - sexuality was the wrong term and made the definition totally incorrect). When I mentioned matrices I was trying to describe how you could identify, gender-wise, as a male yet have the physical sex of a female and sexually identify as a homosexual (attracted to other males), which results ultimately in a (physically) male and female relationship...which could then be defined as homosexual if the (physical) male were to accept the (physical) female as transgendered and for him to identify sexually as homosexual and male gender-wise. I was hoping to illustrate if you break apart gender identity, physical sex, and sexuality you can come up with combinations that are best explained in a matrix or grid (two dimensions) because linear descriptions can seem convoluted.

xlm1717 11y ago

I don't get it. Why go to a University then? It used to be they went to get access to those tools, rational arguments and pointing out logical fallacies. Now it's... have a party for four years and then go back home to your parents?