Mt Holyoke Cancels The Vagina Monologues Because It Excludes "Women Without Vaginas"
link
So the reasoning is:
Some women do not have vaginas
Therefore: It would be wrong to perform The Vagina Monologues
Well, what you have there is a false premise and a conclusion that does not follow from it.
I mean, Brown is right: it's stupid to say that a play "excludes" a tiny group simply because no member of that group is explicitly represented in the play. But she's wrong about the other stuff, as her commenters indicate.
But, in a way, I'm happy for the left to be facing such vexations. They've made their own tangled...uh bed...web...whatever...by insisting that everyone must assert that men who simply "identify" as women are women.
I don't think that people should be seriously hassled for dressing and acting in non-traditional ways. If you're female and want to dress and act like males have, then, well, you go girl. But that does not mean that you're a man. A man is an adult, male human. It is false that anyone who "identifies" as a man is a man. And the attempt to employ moral condemnation against those who refuse to except a bizarre and false "constructivist" metaphysics is idiotic and morally wrong. I'm basically on the side of people who want to buck tradition in order to live their lives in a more authentic way...but I won't be bullied into believing false things about them.
So the reasoning is:
Some women do not have vaginas
Therefore: It would be wrong to perform The Vagina Monologues
Well, what you have there is a false premise and a conclusion that does not follow from it.
I mean, Brown is right: it's stupid to say that a play "excludes" a tiny group simply because no member of that group is explicitly represented in the play. But she's wrong about the other stuff, as her commenters indicate.
But, in a way, I'm happy for the left to be facing such vexations. They've made their own tangled...uh bed...web...whatever...by insisting that everyone must assert that men who simply "identify" as women are women.
I don't think that people should be seriously hassled for dressing and acting in non-traditional ways. If you're female and want to dress and act like males have, then, well, you go girl. But that does not mean that you're a man. A man is an adult, male human. It is false that anyone who "identifies" as a man is a man. And the attempt to employ moral condemnation against those who refuse to except a bizarre and false "constructivist" metaphysics is idiotic and morally wrong. I'm basically on the side of people who want to buck tradition in order to live their lives in a more authentic way...but I won't be bullied into believing false things about them.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:19 AM
1 Comments:
It's a strange world in which one must make these points.
Though it will probably do no good, I feel compelled to say that I have yet to bear witness to any explanation of trans-whatever behavior which isn't utterly ridiculous. If you are a girl who wants to wear and do things typically worn and done by men, then be a girl who wears and does things typically done by men. What is with this fixation on convincing others that one's biological structure is not as it is?
I honestly cannot fathom a good reason for such behavior. Like you, I respect the rights of others to live as they choose, but that shouldn't preclude us from pointing out that actions or beliefs make no sense.
The most ironic part of all this, to me, is that those in support of trans-whatever rail against social conventions dictating gender roles, and yet seem driven entirely by them; they want to convince others that they are of a certain biological constitution...so that others will accept their inclination towards activities traditionally affiliated with said constitution?
wat
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home