Call Me Caitlyn Or Else: The Rise Of Authoritarian Transgender Politics
This is one of the best things I've read on this subject.
I think it's basically right on the money.
I think it's basically right on the money.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:55 PM
5 Comments:
Man, that's way too shrill and hyperbolic. Aggressive delivery of harsh facts is unlikely to be the right strategy here.
Don't get me wrong; you know I want to make these same logical points, but this will win over no one and provide but little consolation to few.
Wow, I really can't agree with "shrill.." Nor with "hyperbolic," actually...
Well, I was kinda using "hyperbole" in an emotional sense rather than a reference to literal verbal content. That's probably inappropriate...but it seemed related...but anyway, I was thinking of the association with the errors in the Catholic church and other religious bodies. It's not that it's an invalid analogy, but that bringing that subject into the conversation seems like a malicious maneuver. It strikes me kinda like a comparison to Hitler in that it increases the emotional response to the argument more than it illuminates the issue at hand, valid though it may be.
So I was using "shrill" to describe a tone that is aggressively emotional, like an angry lover relating current issues to former matters more for the emotional effect than a rational one.
It seemed intentionally incendiary. If the audience is religious, it will be angered on that account, and if the audience is irreligious, it will be angered on account of being accused of that character. It doesn't seem the author is very interested in changing any minds, and I'm kinda tired of seeing that sort of thing. Our public discourse is just chock full of it.
Well, if someone changes his name, legally, to Caitlyn, then his name is Caitlyn. Whether you thinks he becomes "she" or not.
As for the "or else", well there's "A Man Called Sue": My name is Sue! How do you do! Now your gonna die.
PM,
I kinda agree and kinda don't names don't really work like that. Some name-changes stick and some don't. This is largely a *de facto* question not a *de jure* one. My good friend "Stephan" is still Steve to me, and always will be.
This is particularly dicey when someone is famous under one name and not under a new name. Nobody calls Cat Stephens "Yusuf Islam." And nobody calls Demi Moore "Demi Moore-Kutcher" (I had to look up that last one b/c I couldn't think of any good examples...now that useless piece of information is in my brain...)
The only real point I have to make about Jenner's name is: it's crazy and bizarre to make a federal case out of calling Jenner 'Bruce'--especially in conversations that Jenner is not taking part in. It's some freaky obsession.
Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem calling Jenner 'Caitlyn'--I just agree with the article that people--not Jenner, but the internet PC lunatic crowd--has blown the name issue way, way out of proportion.
Of course if someone is saying 'Bruce' just to be an asshole, then I don't see any objections to fighting fire with fire.
OTOH I *do* think some name-changes are important, as if, say, a woman changes her last name to break ties with an abusive spouse.
Anyway, this seems to me to be the least-important point made in the piece.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home