Before we can embark on any kind of discussion on anything, we need to establish the parameters thereof. The current trend for writing off people who disagree with woke viewpoints as monsters from the right-wing Id is not only polarising, it's hurting people in a variety of ways, destroying careers, friendships, and even family relationships. Believe it or not I'm all about inclusivity, by which I mean including everyone, not just choosing which people to bring into the fold and which ones to leave out. How, then, can we be fully inclusive and meet everyone's needs? The truth is you can't, but you can find solutions that work for most of us. I've got some ideas on how. These include
- Take a "no one left behind" approach
- Cover all the bases
- Stakeholder round table discussions
- Find pathways to solutions for all
No one left behind
Tonight's cartoon is a depiction of the elephant in the intersectional room where gay men or trans women are concerned: the families that those who were married leave behind. @transwidows has done a lot of work to explain what happens to the women and children involved since it's usually men who want to change gender, then demand that the marriage continue with the wife now treated as a lesbian partner. Meanwhile, Emma B has a website resource centre for the children of trans parents.
Let them speak and be heard
Coming to terms with the sudden upheaval requires acknowledging the justifiable rage that those left behind inevitably feel when Daddy wants to be known as Mummy or whatever from this day forth while the woke and the wonderful wibble on about how stunning and brave she is. As I pointed out before, the Left tends to make a competition of the oppressed, and the winner is the Most Oppressed Mass. For this reason, the mostly middle-income women left behind by the stunning and the brave tend to be left behind, and if they complain they are Karens.
I completely understand the resentment against trans women when that is the mess left behind. No woman should ever be used as a man's closet door, whether he's gay or trans. What do we do about this? Join the intersectionalists in demanding that women who got married on the basis of a hetersexual relationship become lesbians by default and support their husbands, or support these marginalised (and often impoverished) women at the risk of being deemed transphobic for it?
If you really want to be properly inclusive, we have to let the trans widows have a say and acknowledge their pain and struggle. This doesn't push trans women out, it just means that people left behind by them don't get pushed out either for going against the supportive spouse narrative. As it is, we have several strands of feminism and all of them seem to hate each other. This is not beneficial to anyone, and when the dominant strain of thought from their side dominates the national and international perspective on anyone's rights, sooner or later it affects the rest of us.
Cover all the bases
I got another chance to talk about my own experience of cancel culture today on a thread by Jodie Ginsberg.
Or who wasn't woke enough. Just being a moderate (we need tax-funded healthcare and services) conservative Christian who wants to get along with everyone has got me labelled a nazi. Apparently my views on ---- issues are extremely hateful and harmful. Safeguarding bad. 😡🤬— Wendy Cockcroft (@wendycockcroft) July 15, 2020
British Future's Sunder Katwala had an interesting take:
There may be different levels. I think— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) July 15, 2020
(1) merits deplatforming/bans (and the law over a certain further threshold)
(2) objective of org cultures - tensions may be esp tricky/underexplored
(3) is what we should aim for by persuasion & cultural norms https://t.co/LlZis5q6Zj
which led to a rather fascinating debate with Jodie:
For me the line is content that directly incites or threatens violence, or speech that constitutes harassment (i.e. repetitive unwanted behaviour clearly directed at a specific individual).— Jodie Ginsberg (@jodieginsberg) July 15, 2020
OK. I think you are saying that you would not remove this content from Twitter. So they should allow these tweets (banned a year ago for faith groups).https://t.co/D63ruTRDCo— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) July 15, 2020
The vaguer the definition of speech you want to restrict, the more difficult it becomes to apply sanctions equitably because it then becomes highly subjective (e.g. what is 'hateful extremism'? What is 'dehumanising content'?).— Jodie Ginsberg (@jodieginsberg) July 15, 2020
To be honest I'd not just remove the items in Sunder's screenshots, but anything that encouraged hatred towards any particular group. There's no value in spreading hate, and this principle needs to apply to everyone, not just selected groups. Pretty much everything in Ginsberg's thread is worth reading and I ended up following both of these intelligent and thoughtful people.I absolutely agree. The most important thing that would add value to a very rhetorical debate would be for voices within it to look through the other end of the telescope.— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) July 15, 2020
The cancel culture is all made up view is similarly lazy https://t.co/SiOZhpVT9x
Stakeholder round table discussions
One thing that particularly annoys me about intersectionalism is how exclusionary it is. The most stridently woke voices rule the roost and since the rules are ill-defined you're constantly walking on egghells around them. It's no way to live. A better way forward is a series of round table discussions with all stakeholders invited. This paper I found on stakeholder engagement gives an idea of what I'm talking about. Now substitute "public" for "market" and you get the idea of what I'm talking about.
The outside-in orientation leads to innovation, creativity, and improved firm performance in high-tech firms (Im & Workman, 2004). Drucker (1985) suggests that the need for outside-in orientation is particularly important for knowledge-based innovation, such as those seen in most high-tech industries: “It may seem paradoxical, but knowledge-based innovation is more market-dependent than any other kind of innovation. Careful analysis of the needs, and above all, the capabilities of the intended user is essential”(Drucker, 1985, p. 9). - Saeed, Saadat & Yousafzai, Shumaila & Paladino, Angela & De Luca, Luigi. (2015). Inside-out and outside-in orientations: A meta-analysis of orientation's effects on innovation and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management. 47. 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.037.
This is the kind of thing I had to read to pass my ethical management course. In plain English, you can't get stuff done effectively and efficiently without talking to the people involved. In this particular instance, the authors are telling us it's pointless trying to market a product to people who don't understand it. Working with the people who will be using it helps to create a better, more popular product. This sentence is the crux of the matter: Careful analysis of the needs, and above all, the capabilities of the intended user is essential. We have a situation where the definitions of "woman" and "female" are being re-written by unaccountable academics and we're being forced to accept these at jobpoint*, the result of which is determined resistance from the people affected thereby. Natal women are the end-users of the words "woman" and "female," along with everyone else who claims a feminine identity. We weren't given a say in this and we're annoyed about it to say the least. So what can we do about it now?
Talk to, not at, each other
If we could hold conferences with working groups to discuss the various elements of the transgender movement that affect natal women, we'd be able to hammer out some compromises that work for the majority. This is something we can easily do online. All we need to do to make this work is to agree that all concerns brought up by all parties are valid and should be discussed, not dismissed. As it is, the conversation is being shunted to the right and ignored by the left. Given the rightward turn of political discourse in Western society, that's not a good idea. Bear in mind that trans people are stakeholders too, even if they haven't transitioned. If we cut them out of the conversation they'll just have it anyway with other people and the shouting matches will continue.
Find pathways to solutions for all
In my last post I talked about how cancel culture has resulted in competing echo chambers and little in the way of quality discourse. The good news is that some people are willing to step outside of their comfort zones and learn from other people. Adopting such a healthy attitude leads to productive discussions in which all cards are laid on the table and issues discussed, not dismissed. Working towards solutions that cater to the needs of the many, not the few, is the way forward. For all of us it should lead to more and greater understanding of our differences as well as what we have in common. The socialisation of women to defer to men and to cater for their needs should be taken into account: no one should presume upon that expectation to front-load us with the responsibility for cleaning up men's messes. That this is common is an absolute scandal. Acknowledging this truth will go a long way towards promoting healing in our communities.
Evidence-based proposals
Progress is going to be slow, we have to accept that. It could take months or even years to hammer out solutions that take the demands and needs of all stakeholders into account. Nothing should be left off the table. This should be multi-disciplinary and include legal and medical experts as well as witness reports and stakeholder debates. Only when every item has been properly discussed, examined, and evidence provided for the positions held, can we hope to present evidence-based proposals for moving the discussions forward. This should hopefully include areas for further discussion, the idea being to have an interim plan to implement for the time being. There should be a press committee to provide information to media outlets, the idea being to disseminate the information and items agreed on, as well as position papers from all stakeholders. We don't even have to agree on everything, just on enough to get stuff done. As long as we all work together in good faith we can have a positive outcome, I truly believe this.
What I fear is that this will not happen and we end up with a battle of the echo chambers. Please, please don't let that happen, or the extremists will win. If they do, nobody truly wins.
*Maya Forstater lost her job for stating that sex is immutable, a biological fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment