Trans

Antioch College Learns That Criticizing the Transgender Movement Is Always 'Hate Speech'

It's not enough to support transgender rights: one must also use the right pronouns, or risk being called a Nazi.

|

Caitlyn Jenner
Screenshot via Youtube

An article in a literary magazine that took issue with some of the transgender movement's tactics has come under fire for promoting "hate speech" and violence against trans people. Now the anti-speech left has launched a petition asking the magazine's editors to disavow it. 

The article, "The Sacred Androgen: The Transgender Debate" appeared in the recent edition of The Antioch Review, the well-respected literary magazine of Antioch College. Its author, historian Daniel Harris, begins by expressing complete support for trans people's right to undergo sex-reassignment surgery: 

Those who choose to alter or even mask their gender merit full protection under the law merely because their decisions, while they may divest them of breasts and birth names, do not strip them of their humanity. 

The subsequent several-thousand-words detail all the ways the movement focuses on the wrong issues—like enforcing correct pronoun usage—and promotes a culture of celebrity body modification. 

Right or wrong, Harris's essay is interesting. It's certainly within the realm of acceptable opinions about the trans movement, even if I don't agree with it. Given that the public is still sorting out how it feels about trans people in bathrooms, what age children should be allowed to transition, etc., thoughtful critiques of these subjects should be welcomed by everyone who values an exchange of ideas. 

The problem, of course, is that a great many people at university campuses don't value an exchange of ideas if said ideas clash with their own in any way. A contrary notion isn't a valued contribution—it's an expression of hate and violence. 

"The layers of not only complicity but endorsement that this dehumanizing article passed through is astounding," claimed more than 3,000 writers and editors in a joint statement. "As members of the literary community, we refuse to be silent in the face of transphobia in our midst, which we understand to be related to the many individual and structural incidents of racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, and other violences large and small experienced by members of our community." 

A change.org petition went full Godwin's Law and accused the magazine of publishing a Nazi. 

"Today, the Antioch Review editors have chosen to hide behind the all-too common refrain of 'free speech'," claimed the petition's author. "Hate speech is not protected speech." 

But of course hate speech is protected speech. Hate speech, in fact, is the exact kind of speech that most fervently requires protection. If the First Amendment did not safeguard the right to say controversial, even despicable things, it would be pointless. Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of hate speech. 

A literary magazine, published by an institution of higher education, is exactly the right place to grapple with tricky subjects like gender norms, biology, and language. If the magazine only published ideas that offended no one and were agreed upon by all, it would serve little purpose. 

It should go without saying that trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else. But there is no right to be immunized from criticism. Nor should there be. It might be the case that altering some of its tactics would serve the trans community well and lead toward more rapid societal acceptance. If everyone who questions the movement's current philosophy is derided as a Nazi, the cause of trans acceptance might actually be harmed. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Without Herbicides, Food Itself Would Be Impossible*

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. REPENT SINNER.

    What is with these people? Fucking fascists.

    1. They were Nazis Walter?

      1. https://youtu.be/m8lpteBcNQY?t=5

        Donny
        You’re like a child who has wandered in
        No frame of reference
        Oh reference!

      2. “Oh come on, Donny. They were threatening castration. Are we going to split hairs here?”

        1. Am I Wrong?

          1. You’re not wrong, Curt. You’re just an asshole.

      3. Shut the fuck up Donny!

      4. I just watched that again last night. Classic.

  2. It’s certainly within the realm of acceptable opinions about the trans movement

    Big of you, Robbie, to give permission like this.

    1. Its got to be blamed on the editors at this point.

      1. or “lack thereof”

    2. Yeah, I was gonna ask for a translation for that sentence…because, what?

      1. Ugh. What are you, old? There are opinions, and there are opinions. Some are Okay and Some are Not Okay. And what writers do is tell you which is which. LOGIC, hello?

      2. Do you seriously not understand the phrase “in the realm of acceptable opinion”? Because it parses out pretty clearly to me.

        I mean, I know RC and Gilmore are being purposely obtuse in order to express their disapproval of differing opinions, but I just want to be sure that there’s a genuine lack of clarity here and I’m just not picking up on it.

        1. Define “Unacceptable opinions” please.

          While you’re at is, define “hate speech”.

          1. Don’t worry they’ll teach you the meanings at the camp…

        2. I agree here – it caused a kneejerk WTF for me initially, but thinking about it for a bit . . . well there are acceptable and unacceptable opinions. What they are depends on the communities you’re involved in.

          Nazis bad = acceptable opinion. Anyone who disagrees with that is a minority in this country.

          Puppy flesh makes a good appetizer = not acceptable opinion.

          If you can’t see someone’s bias its because they agree with yours.

          1. You lost me at “communities”

          2. Puppy flesh is much better as a main course.

            1. Someone is part of the Korean community, I see.

              1. Indonesians prefer it for dessert? or ‘amuse bouche’?

          3. well there are acceptable and unacceptable opinions. What they are depends on the communities you’re involved in.

            It would seem, in that context, that one would have to express what community they are referring to in order for ‘acceptable opinion’ or ‘unacceptable opinion’ to make any sense.

            For example, in my community, it is entirely acceptable to be of the opinion that transsexualism of any type is a symptom of a delusional mental illness. However, I doubt Robby would agree with that characterization being acceptable.

          4. Puppy makes a fine appetizer.

          5. Puppy makes a fine appetizer.

          6. Puppy makes a fine appetizer.

            1. Three Dog Night?

              I’ll narrow my own gaze now…

        3. Hugh’s filling in for Nikki. Since she’s been 5150’d or something, Hugh is attempting to do double-duty.

          I for one don’t understand what is “acceptable opinion” about the Trans movement. I personally think there is a lot of undiagnosed mental illness among the people who want to chop off body parts…but that’s just me. If that is unacceptable, so be it.

          1. That is wrongthink, and they will not stop until all wrongthink is eradicated!

            Seriously though, when the leading LP presidential candidate is all about public accommodation laws, it should show you how many libertarians are on board the SJW train.

            1. “But we were on your side for gay marriage and the trans movement” isn’t going to mean shit to the SJWs as they march libertarians to the camps and later to the ovens.

              They are our enemies, perhaps the most dangerous ones.

        4. RC and Gilmore are being purposely obtuse in order to express their disapproval of differing opinions

          I’m not expressing disapproval of differing opinions.

          I am objecting to the notion that there is such a thing as a “realm of acceptable opinion”, because that means there is also a realm of unacceptable opinion. Pushing opinions you disagree with into that realm is the foundation of censorship. Its another SJW trope, and Robbie just cannot resist peddling those, it seems.

          1. Uh, no. You can refuse to accept someone’s opinion, and not call for censoring it. Lack of acceptance is not the same as trying to censor someone. That you have a semantic difference about what “acceptance” means doesn’t mean Robby supports censorship, which he clearly doesn’t.

            1. You can refuse to accept someone’s opinion, and not call for censoring it.

              An individual’s “refusal to accept” is disagreement.

              “Acceptance”, or not, of an opinion makes no sense at an individual level. The use of that term only makes sense at a societal level, and is a big step toward censorship.

              1. Nope. Acceptance works just fine on an individual level. I refuse to accept otherwise. But I guess that’s just the first step towards censoring you. Let me know when the phantom lynch-mobs come for you, I’ll make sure to feel REALLY bad over my magical lack-of-acceptance powers.

                1. What’s the difference between saying you disagree with my opinion, and saying my opinion is unacceptable?

                  See, the first statement is about your personal beliefs. The second is a statement about the status of my opinion in some objective sense. There’s a difference.

                  You, of course, are free to continue misusing words. And I am free to disagree with you.

                  1. Unacceptability isn’t objective in the least. Different people are willing to accept different things.

                    An individual’s “refusal to accept” is disagreement.

                    No, refusal to accept is actually stronger than mere disagreement.

                    Disagreement is “You like Pepsi? I think Coke’s better. To each his own.”

                    Refuasal to accept is “You like Fresca? What the hell is wrong with you? Get out of my house you freak!”

    3. You people are masters at reading too much into statements like that.

      1. Who are you calling “you people”?!?!

        1. “we” are! Duh!

      2. Yeah, I think what he meant was that it wasn’t like the dude came out and said all fags must die.

    4. Whatever you consider the realm of acceptable opinions, it is certainly within it.

      I suppose a bit more specificity about “acceptable to whom” would help. But I’m pretty sure you can work out what he means.

      1. The entire concept of “Acceptable/Unacceptable” implies that someone somewhere gets to play Arbiter. Whether by position of authority or popular consensus.

        it a implicit validation of the entire notion of speech-policing

        1. Which is why the question is always “acceptable to whom?”.

          Sort of like “offensive”. Anything is offensive if someone is offended by it.

          But the way people talk is full of that kind of assumed normative judgements about things, so what are you going to do?

          1. so what are you going to do?

            Stop insinuating certain things are ‘unacceptable’ without ever naming them?

        2. A concept so old the Romans had a name for it. Trying to fight against that would be like pissing into the wind.

          1. *squints*

            You are Boni, not Popularis, eh Quirite?

    5. I don’t believe in “acceptable” v “unacceptable” opinions.

      I believe in opinions I agree with, and ones I don’t.

      1. That’s the EXACT SAME THING.

        1. No, its not. See above. Agreement occurs at an individual level. Acceptance only makes sense at a societal (or, I suppose, group) level. It is a precursor to censorship.

          1. Nope, acceptance happens on an individual level too. Sorry you have trouble understanding that, but I guess it’s hard when you can’t accept that you don’t accept someone’s opinion. Must make conversation really hard for you.

            1. Sorry you have trouble understanding that

              I understand just fine that “disagreement” is a description of your personal response, while “unacceptable” is a statement about the status or category of the opinion.

              One is subjective, the other is not. And the other, as a general/objective statement about the opinion, is the foundation of censorship. Whether you take that next step is up to you, but you are certainly helping to lay the foundation.

            2. The difference is that when a person disagrees with you opinions, nothing happens, when a group finds your opinions unacceptable, you lose your career, or lose your business, or get assaulted, or you get sued. They have already done ALL of that. The next step is jail or death for unacceptable opinions.

              So yes there is a damn HUGE difference between personal disagreement and group enforced unnacceptability.

  3. Critical thinking = hate speech

  4. It should go without saying that trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else.

    Unfortunately, in this day and age, nobody has the same rights as “everyone else”. Some have more, some have less.

    1. It’s a hierarchy. A caste-system, if you will.

    2. But they do deserve the same rights as everyone else deserves, whether or not everyone actually effectively has those rights under the current legal regime.

      1. they do deserve the same rights as everyone else deserves

        They do, and they have them. Of course, I cling to the notion of negative rights, and (properly) label positive rights, like protected classes, public accommodation “rights’, etc. as “privileges”.

    3. Some animals are more equal than others.

  5. But of course hate speech is protected speech. Hate speech, in fact, is the exact kind of speech that most fervently requires protection.

    Did we all agree on the definition (or even existence) of “hate speech” at some point?

    1. Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of hate speech.

      Phew. I was nervous there for a minute.

      1. Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of hate speech.

        It’s whatever the cleric, er, judge says it is.

        1. They know it when they hear it?

      2. Unlike, say, every other phrase.

    2. The whole notion of “hate speech” is just fucked. There is certainly hateful speech. But the people pushing “hate speech” seem to want to simply assume that merely using certain words or phrases is hate, all by itself. Which is just absurd.

      1. As Carlin once said, it’s not the word that’s the problem. It’s the racist bastard whose saying it that’s the problem.

        1. And declaring certain words off limits just gives those words more power to hurt and offend. If people would just laugh at people who say dumb racist shit rather than acting like it’s the end of the damn world, those words would lose their power pretty fast.
          “Nigger” is probably the prime example in contemporary American English. It is offensive to a lot of people, and quite understandably so. I wouldn’t expect people to change that overnight. But it seems like people are working as hard as they can to maintain it as a word that assholes can use when they want to upset people when it seems like it would make a lot more sense to try to turn it all into a joke. It’s gotten to the point where using nasty words like that to make fun of stupid racists will get you in trouble, even if it is completely obvious from the context that the whole intent was to mock and shame people who would actually engage in hateful speech.

  6. “Those who choose to alter or even mask their gender merit full protection under the law merely because their decisions, while they may divest them of breasts and birth names, do not strip them of their humanity.”

    Robby, you should know this by now – saying someone has the RIGHT to do something is not sufficient. You can’t merely tolerate someone’s decisions and say they should be allowed to make them. You also have to pat them on the back and tell them all their choices are wonderful and brilliant and that you’re actually kind of sad you’re a boring cis-hetero white male instead of a tri-gendered otherkin with a midget-foot fetish.

    Also, being gender fluid isn’t a real thing. Sorry, but somebody has to say it.

    1. Also, being gender fluid isn’t a real thing. Sorry, but somebody has to say it.

      FUCK YOU FOR PISSING ON PRINCE’S GRAVE!

    2. I am fluid with my gender fluid.

      1. *This message was brought to you by Castrol?, official provider of Gender Fluids for Whiteness Awareness Month

    3. In the future everyone will be a pan-gendered allkin, and there will finally be peace and equality.

    4. Also, being gender fluid isn’t a real thing.

      Or it’s a new word for being a weirdo.

      It’s all kind of inconsistent, though. The notion that everyone should accept “gender fluidity” in a similar way to how being gay has become much better accepted by most people, does seem to be a bit inconsistent with the whole idea of transgender. What’s wrong with just being whatever it is that you are and finding people with similar interests and proclivities to hang out with?
      I think it would be great if people would tolerate and accept and maybe even celebrate all the different kinds of weirdos there are in the world. But this fighting over just what terms are appropriate to use really doesn’t seem like a good way to get there.

      1. Or it’s a new word for being a weirdo.

        Yes, exactly. People exert a lot of effort getting upset that freaks exist and getting upset that people get upset that freaks exist and getting upset that people are upset that people are upset that freaks exist. Get your acts together.

        1. People get upset when told that they must accept, accommodate and enable every single vagary of any mind as if it is an immutable fact of nature–until it’s not whereupon they are required to already have adopted the new paradigm before it has even solidified, until, of course, the next one comes along–all while being told that anything they like, do, or treasure–however ‘freaky’–is oppressive.

          And yes, Warty, it takes a lot of effort to remain constantly on the bleeding edge of modern thought when that modern thought centers around telling you that being on that bleeding edge is racist.

    5. That’s because gender isn’t a real thing. There, I said it. Let the proggies come to take me to the reeducation camps.

    6. “gender fluid isn’t a real thing”

      Then you’re doing it wrong

  7. It’s not enough to support transgender rights: one must also use the right pronouns, or risk being called a Nazi.

    Returning to the discussion about whether or not the “goals of the social justice movement” are laudable or not, I lean towards ‘not’, because it starts as a broadly decent idea, greater social acceptance of people “not like us”, and then where the rubber meets the road, turns into a creepy kind of ‘forced participation’ march.

    1. They have a tendency to bastardize definitions and in the case you mentioned, “tolerance,” “acceptance,” and “celebration” have been mashed together. They don’t mean anything anymore.

  8. Harris’s essay is interesting. It’s certainly within the realm of acceptable opinions about the trans movement, even if I don’t agree with it

    Thank god Robby ensured to let us know his personal judgement, lest we be left in doubt.

    There’s also the little thing about bothering to note your own disagreement, but never actually providing a single detail about ‘why’.

    Reread that entire paragraph and ask how or why the author’s injected opinion matters at all.

    1. He didn’t go in depth about his opinion because that’s not what the post is about. People who are capable of discerning broader context in written content even have a word for it.

      1. that’s not what the post is about.

        Which is exactly why i said it stands out as entirely unnecessary and irrelevant.

        its one thing to be a nag, hugh, but you’re a persistently stupid nag.

        1. Ah, well after you called me a name I guess I see how I was wrong.

          1. I called you a name after i explained to you why you were wrong. jesus.

      2. That’s more a symptom of HnR, and (most blogs in general), not being clear about what’s intended to be a news article and what’s intended to be an Op-Ed, i.e., “Doin’ a Jon Stewart”.

        1. Reason as a publication has actually been pretty good about embracing the blurry (as in illusory) distinction between news and opinion. It should be pretty easy to pick up from reading even for a short time that H&R is a blog that presents news and analysis from a pronounced ideological perspective. Like most blogs, come to think of it.

          1. Fair enough, but there’s editorialization and then there’s editorialization.

          2. It should be pretty easy to pick up from reading even for a short time that H&R is a blog that presents news and analysis from a pronounced ideological perspective.

            *A* pronounced ideological perspective? You mean the one that pretty much accepts any and all the other ideological perspectives under the sun as long as no one gets shot or mugged? That *one*?

    2. As other have said, it’s just an aside to let us know that the rest of the content doesn’t devolve into anything completely psycho, FFS.

      It should be read as basically “reasonable people would not think his essay is beyond the pale of things one can believe about this”.

      (Examples of things that would cross that line would be non-Swiftian calls for their extirpation, for instance.)

      1. ^ This.

        I read it as Robby essentially saying “it’s not as if the article went on to call for the transgendered to be outcast from society.”

        The point of Robby’s article is that this guy was well within what used to be considered entirely politically correct territory and he is still being called out as a Nazi. Sort of like Lomborg with CAGW.

      2. i was simply pointing out Robby’s knee-jerk insistence on not only distancing himself from things he ostensibly defends, but inserting disposable judgements along the way as a sort of added insulation.

        its not like this is some singular-example. its more like a hallmark at this point.

        1. And, the terms he uses to couch his opinions are all too often lifted straight from the SJW playbook.

          In a way, its an interesting study in how someone apparently marinated in SJW concepts struggles to escape from the mental prison they create.

          We’re pulling for ya, Robbie, we really are.

          1. I also think he’s doing a bit of trying to appeal to millennial SJWs and counter the image that all libertarians are the Harry Dean Stanton character from Red Dawn.

            1. All libertarians are the Harry Dean Stanton character from Red Dawn.

              That’s rubbish!

              Libertarians are actually the Harry Dean Stanton character from Repo Man

    3. Robby had to give his opinion or else we might think he’s a Nazi.

  9. So, I was told by Tonio this morning that my comments on the trans movement were bullshit. That they face systematic discrimination. The only example of which was North Carolina’s bathroom law. Itself only a response to accommodation laws passed in the name of transgendered rights. I harp on this issue because of all the progressive activists I have personally been exposed to, by far the most extreme and downright fascist were the trans ones. Most transgendered aren’t activists, but the agitators behind this movement are progs.

    There is, as far as I can tell, no right actually being denied to the transgendered. They do, however, have a slew of positive rights they want to force on everyone else. Worse than making a baker make a cake.

    Reason has spent more ink on North Carolina’s bathroom law that imposes no burden on private establishments, and very little on New York’s godawful, anti-first amendment gender identity laws.

    1. That they face systematic discrimination.

      Even though 99% of the public never comes into any contact whatsoever with ‘trans’ people, they are all part of a System of Oppression. And anyone who can claim membership of some parallel victim-class is granted magical powers which allows them to feel the collective suffering of others and speak on their behalf.

      Get with the program, yo.

      1. Even though 99% of the public never comes into any contact whatsoever with ‘trans’ people

        Bullshit. I work in downtown Minneapolis and see trannies nearly everyday.

        1. EAP: “Excuse me. Are you one of those silly men who dress up in women’s clothes?”
          Hooker: “No, baby, i’m all wom-”
          EAP: [peels out]

          1. +1 crying game

        2. change ‘99%’ to ‘vast majority’. I presume you’re not representative of either.

          1. Is that true?

            I live in small town, rural New England and I personally know a few people who are, to say the least, unsatisfied with their biological sex and “assigned gender”.

      2. There is a miniscule portion of the population born with ambiguous genitalia and/or one of the chromosomal defects that has too few or too many sex chromosomes as a feature. These people are ‘trans’.

        So 99% never being in contact is probably correct.

        Other people, who claim they are one sex in the other’s body, or no sex, or fluid in their sexuality–or ones who adopt the strange panoply of genders now available are either delusional, enjoying a deep fetish, or being tumblristas

        And I say this as someone who can claim all kinds of genders and sexualities under their twisted definitions.

        And yet I find that simply remaining Azathoth is enough.

    2. Whenever I see this “systematic discrimination” bullshit, the first thing I think of is unskilled labor. There is NO group facing more systematic discrimination than unskilled labor; they are systematically denied the ability – no, the RIGHT – to sell their labor at a price other than the government-decreed minimum and they wind up unemployed.

      1. good point

    3. That they face systematic discrimination. The only example of which was North Carolina’s bathroom law. Itself only a response to accommodation laws passed in the name of transgendered rights.

      In case you can’t already tell (I know you can already tell), there’s a contingent of writers and commenters on H&R that sympathize heavily with the SJW movement save only for how far in the statist direction their solutions go. They are lockstep with the SJW movement in intention, and are open to “compromise” on the solutions.

      1. open to “compromise” on the solutions

        Which means they think there is a problem that needs solving. At that point, you’re arguing over what color the jackboot should be.

    4. That they face systematic discrimination. The only example of which was North Carolina’s bathroom law.

      How letting people do what they want with their own businesses is “systematic” discrimination isn’t at all clear to me.

  10. Replace “transgender” with Islam and you basically describe Iran, ISIS, Saudi Arabia…

    1. Oh, good. Must insert Islam into every topic.

  11. Further, there is no universally agreed upon definition of hate speech.

    I beg to differ. Hate speech is any speech that makes the right people feel bad. If you make the wrong people feel bad, that’s just speaking truth to power or something.

    1. I guess I should say right-thinking people and wrong-thinking people. It’s hate speech to make right-thinking people feel bad, but laudable to make wrong-thinking people feel bad.

      1. In my view, those who support Hillary Clinton are the wrong-thinking people.

        1. In my view, those who support Hillary Clinton are the wrong-thinking people.

          HATESPEECH!!!! NOT OKAY!!!!!

  12. Have we been able to gauge yet how big this militant speech police movement is? Are these just a few but loud squeaky wheels barely standing out from the din of the academic train lumbering past us, or is this a legit movement with a great and powerful membership ready to reshape the allowable lexicon?

    1. First they expelled college students, and I did not stand up because I already have a few PhD’s.

    2. I think the numbers are inversely related to the prestige of the university and the majors in question. The problem for all of us is that these people are in fields and schools that are going to produce future (top) social scientists, activists, community organizers, and government bureaucrats. The Ivy League basically has a direct pipeline to all the major media outlets and government agencies. This shit on some level is being absorbed by our future ‘intellectuals.’

      I’d also point out that Europe is already serving as an example of what these people want to do legislatively.

      1. social scientists, activists, community organizers, and government bureaucrats.

        All majors the productive sector does not want. You knew this was the reason government wanted to take over student loans.

    3. There are 2 groups. The activists, and the water-carriers.

      The activists are the tiny minority; probably only 10s of thousands.

      The water-carriers are like Robby; people who may even be *critical* of the activists for ‘going too far’, but is endlessly validating their basis for existence, re-using their language, taking many (if not most) of their same fundamental claims for granted

      (*like simply taking the existence of ‘rape culture’ for granted, while disputing peripheral details or methods of dealing with it; or, like in this case, decrying instances of speech-oppression, while still re-affirming the very idea that there’s a specific range of ‘acceptable’ opinion and that he is uniquely qualified to arbitrarily determine what these are)

      The water-carriers are in the millions.

      1. “like simply taking the existence of ‘rape culture’ for granted”

        Rape culture is a real thing.

        It’s just that the West isn’t one.

      2. Is “water carrier” a ki d way if saying “useful idiot”?

        1. i guess. i think the latter is too tied-up with socialist-lingo

          1. Some are water carriers. Others are cup bearers, like the ancient Greeks and Romans had. Or the present-day Afghans.

            Kevin R

      3. Well, I don’t like the sound of this.

      4. The water-carriers are like Robby; people who may even be *critical* of the activists for ‘going too far’, but is endlessly validating their basis for existence, re-using their language, taking many (if not most) of their same fundamental claims for granted

        Yes! It boils down to this: if you’re willing to play on their playing field, they’ve already won. All of this bullshit has a philosophical basis, and when you affirm the tenets of the philosophy, the results are fairly simple to derive. The problem is that the philosophy is incoherent, and that’s what needs to be attacked, rather than the latest cultural expression of the philosophy.

      5. Well put, G. Well put.

    4. FIRE has won their last seven or eight cases. I don’t think it’s a great and powerful membership except maybe a few really large schools in progville. And even then they’re eating themselves.

      1. even then they’re eating themselves

        ^ This.

        I think this is actually the tail end of Structuralist thought petering out. As the contradictions of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism continue to fail to resolve, only the shrieking parrots among the undergrads are still getting excited about this stuff, and everyone else notices the contradictions and hypocrisies and is driven away.

        This is how ideologies die – by becoming repulsive and hostile. It just takes a really long time.

        1. If you hear “hate speech,” just go full PoMo and impose your own meaning on the text. Then you will have converted the offending syllables into the dialogue from the latest episode of Girls.

          Kevin R

  13. Can we discuss how fucking retarded liberal claims about gender have become? I’m willing to believe someone born a man could want to live as a woman, so transgenderism makes sense. I mean look at this shit:

    “Trigenderism is a non-binary gender identity in which one shifts between or among the behaviors of three genders, which could include male, female, and third gender (or genderless, non-gender, polygender, or any other variety of genderqueer identities).”

    The other day I came across the term pangender – meaning literally all genders at once. What the fuck does that even mean? Facebook has 51 gender identities now and a ton of them are repetitive nonsense. For example – they include both agender (meaning you have no gender, though I’m not sure how the fuck that’s possible) as well as ‘androgynous,’ meaning you don’t identify with any one gender. What’s the difference between having no gender and not identifying with any one gender? They mean the same thing, so why are they two different options? Gender fluid also means basically the same thing as androgynous, but with some weird nonsense about changing your gender at will, so who the hell knows what these people are talking about at this point.

    1. When are you going to learn? There are over 6 billion genders, and more being created every day.

    2. Here’s the definition of pangender:

      “Pangender (and/or Omnigender) is a non-binary gender experience which refers to a wide multiplicity of genders that can (or not) tend to the infinite (meaning that this experience can go beyond the current knowledge of genders). This experience can be either simultaneously or over time.

      Being pangender does not require that one knows everything about all the established genders nowadays; being pangender goes beyond the known genders. Pangender can express gender fluidity or not; for example, a pangender person can manifest a genderflux, flowing from pangender to agender.”

      ^^^ This is indistinguishable from schizophrenia

      1. “Q: Pangender has the “pan” prefix, which refers to “everything” or “all”, therefore pangender automatically means people who attempt to identify with ethnic genders outside their culture.

        A: No. That’s incorrect. If you are not pangender yourself, don’t try to dictate what our gender is and what it’s not. Only pangender people can say what their gender is. Pansexual also has the “pan” prefix, but it doesn’t mean “people who are sexually attracted to everything, including objects and animals”. Bissexual has the “bi” prefix, but it doesn’t mean “people who are sexually attracted to exclusively 2 genders”. Skoliossexual has the “skolio” prefix, but it doesn’t mean “people who are sexually attracted to people with scoliosis”. See where I am getting to? The same thing applies to pangender. Just because it has the “pan” prefix, it doesn’t mean we are appropriating genders outside our culture. We are not. That’s just the name of our gender identity. Please, respect pangender identity and don’t erase us, it’s transphobic. If someone says that their gender is called agoragender (example), you simply accept it, you don’t question it and you don’t say “your gender can’t be called like that” or “your gender doesn’t exist”.”

        In other words, it means whatever I want it to mean, but it still totally exists

        1. And everyone is required to respect this thing that cannot be quantified.

          It is like walking into a Monty Python sketch.

          1. It is like walking into a Monty Python sketch.

            More like an SNL skit that stopped being funny ten minutes ago.

            1. Do SNL skit even last ten minutes?

              Oh.

            2. an SNL skit that stopped being funny ten minutes ago

              But you repeat yourself . . .

        2. “people who are sexually attracted to people with scoliosis”

          [sits up like a meerkat]

          1. Damn you! You think I am going to explain why I am choking and spluttering and laughing to my startled co-workers?!

      2. I think the proliferation of new terms serves the dual purposes of allowing these people to remain special and marginalized snowflakes through the obscure titles they give themselves, and creating a language hierarchy through which they can continue to ever increasingly signal how open minded and accepting they are. It serves to differentiate them from the average rube, but also helps to establish a tiered system within the ranks of SJW’s. Weed out posers and the new guy who thinks he knows what gender identity is about, but is in for a rude awakening. It is essentially working like an elaborate and snobbish fandom, only they want to apply this shit in real life.

        1. These are the “nerds” of that movement. They’re the D&D Dungeonmasters of this new apocalypse. Someone needs to give them a “20-gendered” die they can roll each day to add up to see what they’ll be after coffee.

      3. Schizophrenia? Do you mean multiple personalities? Schizophrenia is way scarier and more disruptive to one’s life than that definition of pangender.

    3. Actually, I knew someone who could be said to be trigender.

      The guy was a fucking mess. His life was going nowhere because he was very good at sabotaging himself even though he was very smart and capable. Married a wonderful girl, but insisted on dressing up as a woman and going out to bars a couple of nights every month straining their marriage.

      I wasn’t close enough with him to have that heart to heart talk to find out WTF?

      1. Wouldn’t that just make him a transvestite?

        1. It… was… more than that.

          A mutual friend who was very close to him explained it to me as him being unable to figure out the answer to the question as to whether he wanted to live as a woman or a man.

          1. Prolly should have figured that out before he got married.

    4. I’m pretty sure that if you’re more than one gender you can literally go fuck yourself.

      1. Well done, sir. My hat is off to you for that wonderful comment.

    5. Basically it boils down to this:

      People are completely ignorant that “sex”, “gender”, and “gender roles” are separate things. Of these three, “gender roles” are the most vague, and pretty much no one wholly conforms to a single set of gender roles. Plus the whole issue of “gender roles” being a collection of different things, being different among different cultures, and being wholly different from the first two which are biological or mental in nature.

      Transgender people came out and said they felt their gender was different, and wanted to change it. All well and good.

      But then the people who don’t understand the differences between “gender” and “gender roles” latched on to what transgender people were saying. Random tomboys decided that because they had a few interests that were traditionally masculine, that they were somehow some new third gender that did not conform to man nor woman. Since they assume that gender roles are the SAME as genders, and because they realize the simple truth that they (like no human being ever) are not a perfect embodiment of one set of gender roles, they conclude that they are some sort of transgendered person, and make up new terms for their chosen set of gender roles.

      1. I think your comment is a pretty good start. However, I think it’s important to mention the flow of “information” from sex to gender to gender role.

        Gender and gender role are informed, in part, by biology. When the trans movement ignores that, they ignore reality.

      2. It really just boils down to the “look at me!” culture that is so prevalent today.

        Some people get a stupid haircut or another tatt.

        Others get a new gender.

      3. People are completely ignorant that “sex”, “gender”, and “gender roles” are separate things.

        According to the feds, sex and gender are the same thing. Which is why a statute outlawing sex discrimination is now being used to outlaw gender discrimination.

    6. That’s because gender is a nonsense concept. It is literally IMPOSSIBLE to identify as something you’re not- e.g. a woman “identifying” as a man- without being delusional. It’s why you DO see so many people claiming that transgender people are mentally ill, because they know what’s what. But the people who claim a “different gender” from their “birth gender” KNOW what they have and don’t have. They aren’t delusional. But they’re so tied up in trying to be treated as what they WANT to be that they claim (again, nonsensically) that they “identify” as the other.

      Someone with female parts knows she’s female, no matter how much she WANTS to be male, and “gender” is a convenient (to an extent) way of getting people to treat her as male. And that desire and method have morphed into a concept that clearly doesn’t describe whats actually going on. Since gender already doesn’t mean anything real, it can be used to justify all sorts of nonsense.

  14. Dr. Strangegender, or How I Learned To Stop Holding It And Love The Unisex Bathroom.

  15. I can float between any of an infinite number of genders, but if I try to say I’m Tom Brady I get tossed in a padded cell instead of Gisele’s bedroom. NO JUSTICE!

  16. Is it considered hate speech to call someone a Nazi?

    1. Other than Goebbels and maybe Rommel, I don’t think any transgenders survived the Nazis.

    2. Apparently when the person you are referring to is Jewish or Israeli, it is. Saw an article recently about some pro-Palestine people being denounced for “hate speech” that was actually just them Godwinning Israel.

  17. “If everyone who questions the movement’s current philosophy is derided as a Nazi, the cause of trans acceptance might actually be harmed.”

    Well of course… But these whiny, intolerant assholes can’t be bothered with issues of nuance, civility or free speech.
    Christ, can there really be this many whiny little shits out there?

    1. Most of these people aren’t transgendered and don’t even know anyone who is, so it’s probably naive to think they actually care about the well-being of real transgendered folk.

  18. Reason, Stop showing that fake poser’s picture. Jenner is an act. A phony. A fake. An attention whore. A. Fucking. Troll.

    1. Yeah, that’s pretty much the consensus in the LGBTQKDJSDSF community once they found out he was a Republican. Being trans doesn’t count if you like Reagan!

      1. “he”

        GASP

        omg well i guess we know who has unacceptable opinions now

      2. I heard two Libertarian transwomen talking about Jenner once, both opposed Jenner from the start. They thought she was insane because she refers to “Bruce Jenner” as if he’s like a separate person.

        1. *scowl*

          /Bob Dole and Isiah Thomas

    2. We live in a clickbait world. It’s the sole reason SJW’s try to out-stupid each other. Apparently the good marketing jobs require you to have a certain million number of hits on Facebook in order to be considered.

  19. “If everyone who questions the movement’s current philosophy is derided as a Nazi, the cause of trans acceptance might actually be harmed.”

    As a life-long Nazi, I’m feeling a bit microaggressed by that statement.

  20. OT: quiz – why won’t there be any screaming about “common sense gun control” over the Montgomery County shootings?

    1. Meteorologist privilege.

    2. It’s Maryland. Nothing left to ban.

      Beretta finally left that commie theme park.

    3. Something something heroes in blue something something cops are special

      1. dude was FPS.. at age 62?

        The man identified as the at-large suspect in the fatal shooting of his estranged wife outside a school Thursday was placed on administrative duties and stripped of his gun and badge from his law enforcement job at the Federal Protective Service in March when a civil court issued a protective order against him for alleged abuse, according to an official with the agency and court documents.

      2. We have a winner! Federal agent, nothing to see here. Most news reports aren’t even mentioning he’s a Fedcop. Nary a single Derpbook posting from the usual suspects that love dead people and school shootings because of the gun-grabbing opportunities.

        1. When I first heard the news that he was FPS, I remarked to my wife, “Looks like we need to disarm the cops, just to be safe.” I’m not sure she understood where I was coming from; after all, she’s not a regular Reason reader. 🙂

  21. “As members of the literary community, we refuse to be silent in the face of” yada yada.

    One of the signatories of this petition is “C. Russell Price, The Offing and Northwestern University (author of Tonight, We Fuck the Trailer Park Out of Each Other)” – it would have been nice if he’d been silent before uttering that masterpiece.

    Another signatory is “Emily Kiernan, Prose Editor at Noemi Press and Rivet: The Journal of Writing That Risks.”

    Writing that risks? Risks what? It doesn’t risk the denunciation of the right-thinking, I guess.

    “Mae Abel, Sex Worker”

    So many jokes.

    Oh, and speaking of jokes, there’s a page where you can sign the letter, so don’t you *dare* sign any joke names or anything.

    1. So, in what sense is Mae Abel a “member[] of the literary community”?

      1. Thai hooker – can write her name in the snow.

        1. BUT THERE’S NO SNOW IN THAILAND!

          1. Not even in the mountains?

      2. That is how that person self-identifies. Have you not been paying attention to this issue?

    2. Done and done.
      If they aren’t going to listen to contrary opinions, two can play the “I’ll just shout right back into their smug, stupid intolerant faces” game.

    3. Look, “Winn E. Arsehole” just signed – under “affiliation/occupation” they put “Writer Professional Whiner, Social Justice Warrior.”

  22. It should go without saying that trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else. But there is no right to be immunized from criticism. Nor should there be. It might be the case that altering some of its tactics would serve the trans community well and lead toward more rapid societal acceptance. If everyone who questions the movement’s current philosophy is derided as a Nazi, the cause of trans acceptance might actually be harmed.

    I criticize you when I think you do something wrong in your articles, so I’ll also applaud you when your craft something masterful.

    I think this is a great paragraph (and a good article, overall)!

    *polite applause*

    1. Agreed.

    2. Indeed. Assuming by “same rights” he is referring to negative rights, not privileges in drag.

  23. People that would ban speech that doesn’t align with thiers calling others Nazi’s? That’s really effing pathetic.

  24. Drawing attention to this shit only gives Trump more power.

    1. The irony is that Trump agrees with their tactics.

  25. Today’s Left is the most anti-Free Speech movement in the history of this country. Hands down.

  26. There is no adjective to adequately describe how stupid these fucktards are.

  27. From the love that dare not speak its name, to the love that won’t shut up about it.

    1. Sorry. You are Robertson Davies, eh? And I claim my five dole-ors: 2 toonies and a loonie, please.

      Kevin R

  28. A literary magazine, published by an institution of higher education, is exactly the right place to grapple with tricky subjects like gender norms, biology, and language. If the magazine only published ideas that offended no one and were agreed upon by all, it would serve little purpose.

    It was my impression that a literary magazines, published by an institution of higher education, is exactly the right place to offend the powers that be in our patriarchal society.

    The Antioch Review is being punished for being negligent in this their only mission.

  29. one must also use the right pronouns, or risk being called a Nazi.

    Or, worse, a not-xe.

    1. +1 pronunciation

    2. Is “xe” pronounced “she” or “zee”?

  30. I can see why that article offended the snowflakes:

    “And yet what is the actual difference between Michael Jackson whittling his nose down to a brittle sliver of bone and whitening his skin with alpha hydroxy acid and arsenic in order to efface his blackness and the TG sanding down her brow bone and hacking off a sizeable chunk of her mandible in order to efface her gender? Why is the one decried as a racially reprehensible instance of self?mutilation, self?denial, and self?loathing and the other extolled as a celebratory instance of self?liberation? Why is it not only okay but valiant for Caitlyn Jenner to liberate her inner woman through rhinoplasties and laryngeal shaves while it is deplorable and pathetic for Michael Jackson to liberate his inner Caucasian through bleaching and cleft chin augmentation?”

    This is a pretty good point, so since they can’t answer his questions they have to render him an unperson.

    1. “Race doesn’t exist, but it is unchangeable; gender is a social construct, but the body is perfectly malleable.”

      1. “Race is a social construct, so we must treat races differently until all are equal.”

        1. “Gender differences are purely a social construct, and the transgendered need surgery and hormones to become who they really are.”

    2. I would also like to point out that the whole gender/racial fluidity movements call into question the underlying rationale of creating protected classes under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause: classification based on immutable characteristics.

      1. This is a double-plus excellent point.

      2. Never-ending mutability is an immutable characteristic!

        1. Q: Who’ll see perpetual change?

          A: You’ll see perpetual change!

  31. How is an Antioch degree worth more than a square of Charmin’?

    1. You can probably get 2 wipes from it?

    2. Ooh, a riddle!

      Because it sticks to your entire career rather than just to the bottom of your shoe?

      1. Antioch has been loony tunes for awhile.

        Kevin R

  32. we refuse to be silent in the face of transphobia in our midst, which we understand to be related to the many individual and structural incidents of racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, and other violences large and small experienced by members of our community

    Go fuck yourselves with a woodchipper, you motherfucking, collectivist assholes.

  33. Harris also writes that the 41% suicide attempt rate among transgender people
    “suggests that many TGs experience profound disillusion over the fact that their problems
    were not resolved during their transition,” when in fact recent studies have suggested that
    this rate is not due to being transgender but due to transphobia itself.

    SCIENCE BURN

    see, this tiny minority doesn’t suffer from any specific problems. Its the *rest of the world that’s all fucked up, and they’re perfect* Logic FTW.

    1. “Studies suggest.” That will be my response to anyone who questions my arguments.

      1. It has gotten to the point where I laugh in people’s faces when they say “studies suggest” or “science says.” More often than not, when you look at the actual studies, they will have a disclaimer in the abstract or shortly thereafter that says “We expressly don’t come to conclusion X, because not enough research has been done.”

        1. Right, or the finding is extremely narrow and the author is interpreting it too broadly.

    2. Since the dead trannies are, umm, dead, how can you even study exactly why they killed themselves? I mean, its not like you can ask them.

  34. These people don’t want to have a national conversation about social justice grievances.

    They want to have a national scolding. They get off on it.

    If they stopped to actually have a conversation, it would ruin it for them. So of course their response is louder scolding, because they get off on it.

    Really, no one should be surprised to hear anything from these people beyond their own shrieking scold orgasms.

    They’re basically SJW trolls, turned into a campus culture.

  35. “Today, the Antioch Review editors have chosen to hide behind the all-too common refrain of ‘free speech’,” claimed the petition’s author. “Hate speech is not protected speech.”

    Perhaps not to you, my SJW darling, but, thankfully, Brandenburg settled this debate long ago.

    1. Hate speech is not protected speech.

      That phrase, in and of itself, is hateful. Therefore, the petition’s author should be censored.

  36. Campus rhetoric aims to silence people, not persuade them. In that sense, it is not rhetoric, but coercion. When activists charge their opponents with aggression, they know what they mean, as aggression is exactly the tactic they use in their own language.

  37. Antioch! My golly, there’s a bastion of True Believers if ever there was one. Makes the dweebs at Oberlin look like pikers, it does.

  38. I don’t understand why this is difficult. Well, I do. It’s difficult for people who are prone to fear any disruption in their preconceived worldview. It could be anything. Wait until they hear about Furries.
    Otherwise, since there seems to be a real thing going on–people choosing to identify as other than their birth sex, and often going to great lengths to do so–we must approach it as we must approach any other interpersonal circumstance: with manners.
    People are entitled to be identified as they wish. Why this isn’t a big deal is because it doesn’t hurt anyone. Hurtful prejudices are not protected by etiquette in fact, nothing is more rude than the expression of hurtful prejudice.
    I don’t understand the transgender thing, I don’t know many transgender people, but if the only thing they’re infringing upon is your preferred conception of the way the world is, then their entitlement to being treated as fully dignified humans trumps your discomfort.
    One may be amazed by how long-established basic standards of etiquette handle so many needlessly controversial things in life.

    1. Fuck off, slaver.

      1. Eat my fat cock.

    2. You found a longer way to say what Robby said in the article.

      It should go without saying that trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else. But there is no right to be immunized from criticism. Nor should there be. It might be the case that altering some of its tactics would serve the trans community well and lead toward more rapid societal acceptance. If everyone who questions the movement’s current philosophy is derided as a Nazi, the cause of trans acceptance might actually be harmed.

      Regarding their “dignity,” it extends no further than any other dignity that any other human deserves. They do not deserve the “dignity” of forcing me to change my beliefs, which appears to be the goal of the trans movement. The fact is that there is a large contingent of people who think that transsexualism and all of its permutations are symptoms of mental illness. You can’t exactly bash them in the head until they accept the “goodthink.”

      1. Mental illness is defined by the relevant professionals. Regardless, it’s no more mannerly to disdain the mentally impaired. You aren’t entitled to ask others to change their worldview, and you aren’t required to change yours. You’re simply required to treat other people with basic respect. That can mean simply holding your tongue when you might prefer to say something nasty.

        1. Mental illness is defined by the relevant professionals.

          They don’t do a particularly good job, but that’s a tangent for a different day.

          You’re simply required to treat other people with basic respect. That can mean simply holding your tongue when you might prefer to say something nasty.

          So we’re saying the same thing. I treat transsexual people just like I treat everybody else, and the transsexuals don’t force me to bake cakes or … uhm, watch them pee?? I guess I’m a bit unclear about what beef a transsexual would have with a random member of the public, beyond the narcissistic “I don’t get no respect ’round here” variety.

          1. Normal human decency should suffice in any circumstance.

          2. So we’re saying the same thing.

            And you need to stop it right now!! Tony came here to preach at someone – play your part, damn you!

        2. Two things. First, mental health professionals seem to change their definitions based on the prevailing societal views. And, many in the trans movement refuse to treat others with the same respect they are demanding. Being compared to a Nazi for writing an article that says the transgender community is not focusing on the right areas is not being treated with respect.

          1. I trust mental health professionals over internet goobers with an agenda. Call me crazy.

            1. What about those mental health professionals who see homosexuality as a mental illness?

      2. You can’t exactly bash them in the head until they accept the “goodthink.”.

        Sure you can. Ask any SJW.

    3. I agree. I would also add that I expect trans/non-gendered individuals to realize that, upon initial contact, my calling them a different pronoun than they would prefer (such as “xe”) is not the result of prejudice or some other malevolent motive but from inexperience with such rare and new preferences. Instead of presuming I engaged in a “microaggression” or am a product of “structural ___phobia,” maybe I made a good-faith mistake based on the fact that the vast majority of people go by “sir” or “madam.” Presuming the latter is also a form of standard etiquette and basic respect reserved for everyone, even we cis-hetero white males.

      1. Completely agree. There is no excuse for rudeness in any form, and correcting other people, especially for their honest mistakes, is rude.

        1. This is one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard here. Here’s a guy who called on the president to kill libertarians with guided missiles, but there’s no excuse for rudeness, lolololololol.

  39. Mental Illness is the new ‘normal’. There is he, him, his. She, her, hers. There is no Xe, Xi, Xu, or Zippideedoo. And I’ll use the pronouns that fit.

  40. It’s ironic that the folks who want to allow only the most pure propoganda and want to crush any deviation from that are calling their opponents nazis.

  41. Great article. Stand by Antioch Review and author Daniel Harris. Please visit my post on this issue.

    http://literarycraft.blogspot……ebate.html

  42. My FB article about Harris’s “Sacred Androgen” was taken offline for several hours. Now the article, which had been on the high first Google page for “Sacred Androgen” (with my site getting many hits) has now been dropped to page four, using some kind of white hat trick. Yikes!

    http://literarycraft.blogspot.com/

  43. Read more about transgenders people problems in this argumentative essay example.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.