3 ms·

> Does this not put them in an ideologically difficult position? Is it not deemed "transphobic" these days to take a position on whether or not someone is reall

> Does this not put them in an ideologically difficult position? Is it not deemed "transphobic" these days to take a position on whether or not someone is really a woman? Not at all. None of the authors claim to be women, all claim to be men. I’m really not sure why you think there would be a problem.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
It’s problematic in the same way that being a TERF is problematic. Are you supporting women by protecting women from the encroachment of their space by other women who are apparently not women? Or are you oppressing women by acting as the arbiter of who is really a woman? In this case specifically, three men have identified as a woman in publishing a book, in exactly the same way that women historically have identified as men to circumvent sexism. As far as the modern ideological narrative goes, you are committing transphobic violence by denying the existence of Mola.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > As far as the modern ideological narrative goes, you are committing transphobic violence by denying the existence of Mola. The simple fact is, you are wrong. The only people who claim that this is "transphobic violence" are people who reject the notion of transgender individuals. You're pretending right wing talking points are actually true. Nothing in this situation has anything to do with transgenderism.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    What would it take for me to convince you that it is actually you who is wrong? Or are your ideological heels dug too far in? How many opinion pieces by trans people would it take to convince you? Who’s credentials matter? Would you accept anything published in that infamously right-wing journal called The Guardian? Not holding my breath.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > How many opinion pieces by trans people would it take to convince you? That's a good question—let's find out! Keep 'em coming.
      - ungamedplayer 5y ago
        Those goalposts though...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- klyrs 5y ago
  The men have not "identified" as a woman, they've written under a nom de plume. Much like Nicholas Bourbaki, or more to the point, Robert Galbraith. At no point has Joanne Rowling taken transgender people seriously, she herself does not "identify" as a man, despite repeatedly writing under a male-sounding name. Never did the contributors of Bourbaki "identify" with that identity. They adopted it for a purpose. This line of inquiry is comparable to the "my gender identity is an apache attack helecopter" bullshit meme. At best, it's completely ignorant, but I doubt it's in good faith. Please avoid such flamebait.
  - yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
    The definition of "identity" in this context was good enough for the owner of the Madrilenian book store owner. That's, like, the entire point of this story. Your own definition of the word in this context is arguably as bullshit as the meme which offends you. Blasphemy toward your own new age received wisdom is not "ignorance".
    - psyc 5y ago
      Making the distinction sheds more light than equivocating.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      > The definition of "identity" in this context was good enough for the owner of the Madrilenian book store owner. It was, because that's all the information they had at the time—that the author of the book represented themselves via a picture of a woman. Most people who do that, are women. And then they got new information: in fact, the book was written by three men, and the woman does not exist. So they updated their priors. That's what people do when encountering someone (or someones) being misleading. It's not a complicated situation at all—we don't need to bring transgenderism into this to understand it. You tell me it's raining, and I'll grab an umbrella. I go outside, find out the skies are clear, and I'll put the umbrella away. Maybe it was raining previously, and it stopped. Maybe you lied. I don't entertain the possibility that it is raining for you but not for me.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

It’s problematic in the same way that being a TERF is problematic. Are you supporting women by protecting women from the encroachment of their space by other women who are apparently not women? Or are you oppressing women by acting as the arbiter of who is really a woman? In this case specifically, three men have identified as a woman in publishing a book, in exactly the same way that women historically have identified as men to circumvent sexism. As far as the modern ideological narrative goes, you are committing transphobic violence by denying the existence of Mola.

mcphage 5y ago
> As far as the modern ideological narrative goes, you are committing transphobic violence by denying the existence of Mola. The simple fact is, you are wrong. The only people who claim that this is "transphobic violence" are people who reject the notion of transgender individuals. You're pretending right wing talking points are actually true. Nothing in this situation has anything to do with transgenderism.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  What would it take for me to convince you that it is actually you who is wrong? Or are your ideological heels dug too far in? How many opinion pieces by trans people would it take to convince you? Who’s credentials matter? Would you accept anything published in that infamously right-wing journal called The Guardian? Not holding my breath.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > How many opinion pieces by trans people would it take to convince you? That's a good question—let's find out! Keep 'em coming.
    - ungamedplayer 5y ago
      Those goalposts though...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
klyrs 5y ago
The men have not "identified" as a woman, they've written under a nom de plume. Much like Nicholas Bourbaki, or more to the point, Robert Galbraith. At no point has Joanne Rowling taken transgender people seriously, she herself does not "identify" as a man, despite repeatedly writing under a male-sounding name. Never did the contributors of Bourbaki "identify" with that identity. They adopted it for a purpose. This line of inquiry is comparable to the "my gender identity is an apache attack helecopter" bullshit meme. At best, it's completely ignorant, but I doubt it's in good faith. Please avoid such flamebait.
- yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
  The definition of "identity" in this context was good enough for the owner of the Madrilenian book store owner. That's, like, the entire point of this story. Your own definition of the word in this context is arguably as bullshit as the meme which offends you. Blasphemy toward your own new age received wisdom is not "ignorance".
  - psyc 5y ago
    Making the distinction sheds more light than equivocating.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > The definition of "identity" in this context was good enough for the owner of the Madrilenian book store owner. It was, because that's all the information they had at the time—that the author of the book represented themselves via a picture of a woman. Most people who do that, are women. And then they got new information: in fact, the book was written by three men, and the woman does not exist. So they updated their priors. That's what people do when encountering someone (or someones) being misleading. It's not a complicated situation at all—we don't need to bring transgenderism into this to understand it. You tell me it's raining, and I'll grab an umbrella. I go outside, find out the skies are clear, and I'll put the umbrella away. Maybe it was raining previously, and it stopped. Maybe you lied. I don't entertain the possibility that it is raining for you but not for me.