First, the claim about what I said:
Improbable Joe @ImprobableJoe Jul 21
@latsot @oolon How about this question: “did you know that the people you’re friendly with are incredibly abusive to trans people?”latsot @latsot Jul 21
@ImprobableJoe Well how about it? I’d want to know more about the abuse, I guess. @oolonImprobable Joe @ImprobableJoe Jul 21
@latsot @oolon The response I got was “how dare you question my online associations”
Then, the actual exchange:
Improbable Joe:
Hey, do you mind if I ask you why you follow obvious terrible bigots like Sarah Ditum and Helen Lewis?
Me:
Hmm. I suppose I do mind a bit, because I think the whole monitoring who follows whom thing is…silly, at best. Twitter isn’t Facebook, and following isn’t friending. At least not in my mind. I’m extremely promiscuous about following, and I follow people for a variety of reasons.
I don’t know enough about Ditum or Lewis for it to be obvious to me that they’re terrible bigots.
And I don’t consider following any kind of endorsement or alliance or friendship.
I awaited a reply, but found I was blocked, instead. Apparently my reply was so rude and offensive and outrageous it merited a block…and then, a few months later, a pack of lies about what he said and what I said.
I was actually a lot more polite than I wanted to be, because I felt sorry for Joe, because he often complained of loneliness and self-loathing. I used to try to include him in conversations because of that.
I wanted to be less polite first of all because frankly I think it’s creepy to go around checking on who is following whom on Twitter, and even more creepy to ask people why they are following This Person or That One. What the hell business is it of anyone else’s? What business was it of Joe’s?
And second because I was pretty sure that claim about Helen Lewis and Sarah Ditum was bullshit, but didn’t want to spend the time and energy to go snooping through their Twitter timelines to try to figure out what he was talking about. Plus when I even thought about it the whole “what business is it of yours??” question became all the more urgent.
And third because anyway I hate this ridiculous belief that following is endorsement.
And fourth because I’m bloody-minded and insubordinate and I just can’t stand people trying to tell me what to do for ridiculous flimsy reasons, especially people with as little connection to me as Improbable Joe.
There are now several people running around squawking that I’m a transphobe and a bigot, and that is bullshit. But I’ve seen it happen to other people as well as to me: the lie gets told and then it spreads and expands with every telling. One example of many: after I wrote that post about Jezebel’s fatuous coverage of Caitlyn Jenner’s Vanity Fair cover, one red-rager shouted at me that if only I’d used female pronouns, people wouldn’t be all blah blah blah. I replied that I had used female pronouns. That was the end of that conversation – but the red-rager went on red-raging elsewhere.
So that’s how this works.
Comparing the original to Improbable Joe’s recollection is informative, but I don’t think he’s lying as such. Clearly, he refers to his impressions of what happened rather than to what happened.
After this post, that particular innuendo stands revealed.
He may not be lying, but what he said is a lie.
I follow awful, obvious bigots from time to time, like the Westboro Baptist Church. It’s useful to keep tabs on what they’re up to. That obviously falls under your point that a follow is not an endorsement (just as a retweet is generally not an endorsement of the tweet).
I’m really very surprised that Joe engaged in this way.
Ophelia, I agree that this is one element of a pattern which is “poisoning the well” for anything you write which has even incidental association with transsexualism; also, to the suspicious mind, any perceived avoidance of the topic will be suggestive.
(Words briefly fail…)
I’d say something supportive but I begin to fear I may already be irredeemably tainted for some doctrinal sin or t’other. So it may not help your case. It may simply add consorting with known counterrevolutionaries to the record, who knows…
…
Ah, fuck it. You and your good heart, you hang in there anyway.
Wow that has to really suck having people squawking that you’re a bigot.
I wonder what that must feel like. Oh, wait…
I pretty much quit twitter well over a year ago because there was just too much drama. People are WAY too invested in “who’s following who.”
People have accused FTB of being a hivemind… odd thing is that as diverse as Twitter is and as easy as it is to freely associate with, listen in on, pay slight attention to, or totally ignore each other, it’s WAY more cliquish.
Other than fighting with homophobes or whatnot, I never really got into any twitter harangues… instead, I just used it to joke around with people… but as people interacted with me, followed me, etc., it started to feel like I was part of a clique anyway.
And then there was the oddness of being unfollowed because of a conversation I’d had with an entirely different person, being unfollowed because I’d unfollowed someone completely different (for totally benign reasons) etc.
Twitter feels like the world’s biggest high school lunch room table. Decide to sit somewhere else for a day and suddenly people are slipping nasty notes into your locker.
I’m with #3 and #5. Back when I was on an online arguing site where you could put people on a “Friends” list, I quickly learned (from more experienced people there) to put my attackers and stalkers on my “Friends” list. That way, if a new name appeared on the board, I could check and see if it was also in my “Friends” list – that would indicate that someone I’d already flagged had done a deceitful name-change to try and attack from an undefended angle.
Likewise, if I were Twittering, I’d want to keep track of the output of some of the worst offenders as far as my area of interest went – you know what they say, keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
And since when are you expected to explain yourself to every Tom, Dick, and Improbable Joe??
Speaking of Sarah Ditum and accusations of this type:
“The definition of TERF is extraordinarily loose: what one is supposed to be excluding trans people from is never identified. To state that male and female bodies exist can be enough to win the TERF label; to state that the division of sex is the foundation of sexual oppression is more than sufficient. (If your observations of reality have led you to believe that sexual dimorphism in humans is both real and socially relevant, you may be confused to learn that acknowledging this is now deemed evidence of bigotry in some quarters.) It is also a highly toxic definition to apply to someone, both because of the intimation of violence, and because there is a hefty taboo within the left at large against “excluding” anyone.”
How TERF Works
Why would Helen Lewis be considered an “obviously terrible bigot”?
As I said – I don’t know.
Except, I suppose I have an educated guess, based on the bullshit people are saying about me – the guess that she questioned some bit of dogma, people pounced on that as thoughtcrime, and it expanded every time it was mentioned. At that rate it doesn’t take long at all to become an “obviously terrible bigot.”
Unfortunately, there seems to be a huge population that thinks hair-trigger Red Raging is somehow a form of effective activism. The culture of ‘offendedness’ and self-declared oppression crosses all ideological boundaries. From the Poor Oppressed Duggars to (some of) the gender police.
. What the hell business is it of anyone else’s? What business was it of Joe’s?
I think it should be ok to ask Why – for e.g. you and RD might both follow Christina H Sommers – But your motives are likely to be very different and I could ask the Why? if I was not sure – I might choose to unfollow you or not read anything of what you write or whatever based on your answer (depending on how important the issue of feminism is to me)
I hate this ridiculous belief that following is endorsement.
But it could be – its not necessary or sufficient but it is possible.
It’s not always obvious whether something is endorsement or not – hence the Why should be fine , not creepy.
(Though I agree , what you said seems to have been misrepresented)
@The Other Chris #9:
That’s patently untrue, though. The label means that trans women are excluded form the category “women” – that’s what the exclusion is. If it’s being used in any other sense, the person using it is simply wrong, like when people call others who do not in fact support a particular brand of ultra-nationalist, racial-supremacist fascism “Nazis”. I realize that Ditum is talking about how she sees the term deployed there, but unless we actually want to throw up our hands and say that communication is utterly impossible becasue meaning is 100% subjective and ultimately arbitrary, contrary to all of the evidence, we actually do get to insist on normative-thus-mutually-intelligible definitions of words, or at least demand an explicit denotation so we know what we’re actually talking about when we suspect a nonstandard usage. There absolutely is a group of self-described “radical feminists” who do not consider trans women’s identities as “women” to be “real”, and it is helpful to have a label for that group. That people misapply the label is as much a problem as not having one, and so we need to be vigilant in policing its usage such that it can retain its utility.
@arthur #10: This probably has something to do with it. I continue to be unable to understand the dynamics of Twitter, which seems to have as much to do with all of this as does actual theoretical or practical differences over approaches to feminism.
We all know that text-based interactions like forums, blogs, etc. are always at risk of misunderstandings due to the lack of the contextual clues that face-to-face conversations provide. Twitter exacerbates this problem not only by limiting what can be said, but also by its non-interactive and multi-threaded nature. Someone may start laboriously responding to a comment (or accusation) with a series of bursty tweets over a period of minutes, only to realize that their point has already been refuted or contradicted in another comment thread elsewhere. It’s a tedious medium, and not at all conducive towards long, meaningful discussions. Moreover, as demonstrated by the original post here, it is all too easy to misinterpret someone or assume something incorrect, merely on the basis of the twitter accounts that they follow.
At this point, I feel like twitter’s strong point is as a place for pointers to more useful forums, cat pictures, and snark.
deepak – I really don’t think it is ok – at least not in the form of a DM out of the blue just to ask the question. If it came up in a larger conversation it might be ok, but specifically messaging someone to say “Y U follow X?” – no, I don’t think so. It’s dumb, it’s intrusive, it’s belligerent…Nope, no good.
How about the idea that following someone on twitter is neither an endorsement or not an endorsement, but instead, an indication that for some reason or another, you want to see what that person tweets?
Maybe that should be considered a rule of thumb. Sort of like “why are you reading that article?” “To see what it says.”
@Ophelia Benson
I suppose it is the nature of blogger-commenter (or broadly artist – fan) in the sense that the commenter feels some sort of kinship that is not reciprocal – for the blogger the commenter is one of many.
If I ever used twitter i wouldn’t think twice of tweeting you if I didnt like something you did – Because I would think it equivalent to commenting on your posts here. (Though ofcourse Twitter is a seriously limited space that tends to encourage Y u no listen 2 me ? type of tweets and in a comment on a post a person is more likely to atleast cite some sources for the objections).
@Jafafa Hots
but instead, an indication that for some reason or another, you want to see what that person tweets?
Fine. But why it invalid to ask what the reason is ?
I’ve been followed on Twitter by people I suspected (or knew) I would consider a mite skeevy on various questions. And by folk I knew very well I did not agree with upon things rather important to me…
Oh. Right. That last part, that’s everyone. Everywhere. Ever.
There’s a threshold at which I say fuck it, block/unfollow. Nothing formal, though. Generally speaking if it’s an out and out white supremacist I’m unlikely to want to risk getting that stuff on me, same as a straight-up Elam school MRA. Outside that level of stink, hey, consider it rope. You can hang yourself, or fashion some lovely rigging for our voyage together. But nothing is forever. It’s a bit like they say about any relationship: you can’t dictate how long they continue to love you. And then again, like it’s even especially fruitful talking only to people you agree with all the time. Sure, there’s boundaries of ick I just don’t want near me, but as anyone will tell you, everyone is pretty much a bigot about something, somewhere. If I simply entirely cut off every damned one of ’em, well, my social life would be even simpler still (and this, at this point, is really saying something), and I could finally just move to that abandoned monastery…
(… and I’m arguing against the why, I suddenly ask myself… And I’m off Twitter entirely now, mind, so it’s all a bit moot. Not my platform, seems to me, is all. I was reminded of Chomsky’s discussion of what it was like discussing anything at all important on commercial television, with minutes between commercial breaks. Not knocking those who stick to it, find ways to make it work, but for me, it just seemed too much trouble for, frankly, just more trouble. But my non-Twitterdom notwithstanding, I think the same is true of associations and discussions generically, anyway. There’s a vague decision tree somewhere, and whether there’s any point listening to or talking to some people is a complicated decision.)
But perhaps more central to this discussion, anyone setting themselves up as the authority that shall determine who I may associate with and choosing to examine obsessively every utterance I make and every conversation I had inspecting me and all of even my most casual acquaintances for potential ‘out ethics’ is likely to get to be too much of a pain for me to bother with themselves, oddly enough. And, hey, they’re likely to consider it mutual when I tell them to go take a leap, anyway, so hey, let them.
The trouble here I figure is the way this stuff can build to a pitch of puritanical and so dominate the conversation that no one can get a thoughtful word in edgewise around the rumbling rumours of ‘bigot’. I thought Ophelia’s comments on Jenner were responsible enough. Does she sooper sekritly have some unexamined prejudice against trans people? Who the hell knows, and like it even matters that much if maybe, somewhere deep in our tangled unconsciousness that’s part of the reason any of us feel inclined to make what’s still a valid criticism, if the comments are honestly intentioned and intellectually defensible (and not stiflingly overbearing and ubiquitous to the point that it’s just uncomfortable for anyone of that persuasion, and more on that in a moment), and I think the stuff about the messages the VF article might give about body image were so responsible, and not so ‘difficult’ to anyone trans that it’s just antisocial going there as briefly as she did. (And, incidentally, you’ll just make yourself crazy hunting for the photos of her in the white robes at the midnight rally, methinks, and were you a real court, charges of harassment and/or abuse of process would be well underway by now.)
The funny thing is: I think it’s oddly related to the same dynamic of these media that makes life for women and trans people and gays and racial minorities online hell. A swarm of assholes trying to chase women out of Reddit and online gaming have numbers and persistence and can so raise the cost of interaction their target has to give up or invest insane amounts of time and energy to stay; social conventions and technology are such that this is possible. In this case, I think well-meaning people trying to make the world safer for the same minorities are focusing to an oddly similar and uncomfortable point thanks to essentially the same features of the networks and similar features of the social spaces.
And also important, it does also become a bit pernicious, and does shut down discussion if there’s just no way you can even come close to discussing certain topics because you’ll immediately get the sideways stink eye however responsible you try to be… make even the most cautious, reasonable criticism of someone trans or how they’re treated in the media and now there’s a whispering rumour of whether you’re a TERF, point out the highly authoritarian and ugly and stifling aspects of Islam and some Muslim communities and families and now it’s are you or are you not Islamophobic, and never mind if you’re the ex-Muslim with the boot on your neck and a family that won’t even talk to you anymore except to snarl ‘apostate’, let’s examine your presumed prejudice and ‘insensitivity’ ad nauseum, talk about it to the exclusion of your grievances, and if you feel alone and isolated in this, or the only ‘allies’ you find are false friends genuinely couching pure bigotries in the few grievances they hope you have in common, and hoping to co-opt you into their own campaign of hatred, well, welcome to one more odd corner of the net, where, frankly, we don’t really give a rat’s ass about what’s important to you; what’s important is this bigotry, and that’s all we do, here. That it is as likely to prop up equally authoritarian and stifling and generally uninteresting spaces, this we don’t notice, and hey, we mean well.
A prescription? Dunno. Maybe two. Will say: 1) I think people need to give Ms. Benson a little credit, here. I read her pretty closely, don’t think any of the people mulling or muttering ‘TERF’ have had a lot that’s especially convincing to add to the discussion. And 2) the easiest and more valuable suggestion I hope I can make, I think: ask what kind of atmosphere it’s creating. I don’t think Ophelia’s comments somehow make this forum terribly uncomfortable for trans people generally on their own; that should be a critical point on which to decide what’s reasonable. What’s more likely to make them edgy, oddly enough, is this cloud of ‘is she or is she not a TERF’ that I really don’t think she’s at all responsible for weaving. And I think I’ll say to anyone trans reading: I doubt it. I expect you’d find your contributions welcome, here, at least by her, even if she or some of the rest of us are a little uncomfortable around trans people from simple unfamiliarity, and old socializations we’re unlikely to easily entirely throw over. I can appreciate the topic’s more than a bit of a live wire for a lot of people, as yes, trans people are treated horribly, excluded a lot of places; I absolutely get that, so I do want to be nice about this. But again: some credit, please. This ongoing muttering strikes me as neither just nor helpful.
And again, Ophelia, I’m sorry you’re getting this crap. I’m not asking anyone to be perfect, never figured you were. I think it’s laudable you’re trying to keep the conversation reasonably open despite the costs, which I expect can seem considerable, on occasion.
John Horstman’s comment above knocked the breath out of me with its utter hypocrisy : “…unless we actually want to throw up our hands and say that communication is utterly impossible because meaning is 100% subjective and ultimately arbitrary, contrary to all of the evidence, we actually do get to insist on normative-thus-mutually-intelligible definitions of words, or at least demand an explicit denotation so we know what we’re actually talking about when we suspect a nonstandard usage. There absolutely is a group of self-described “radical feminists” who do not consider trans women’s identities as “women” to be “real”, and it is helpful to have a label for that group.”
Is it “helpful” to have a label for that group of human beings (3.5+ billion strong) that is FEMALE? Because that is what the word “woman” means. It’s a reality, not an “identity” that MALE people have. Or is it only men who get to “insist on normative-thus-mutually-intelligible definitions, or at least demand an explicit denotation…” Have you ever asked a trans activist to *define* what a “woman identity” is? Spoiler alert: you’ll be called a TERF. More here: http://thenewbacklash.blogspot.com/ (but be forewarned: FEMALE thought crimes – like wanting words for FEMALE experiences – abound.)
Seriously: “We need a word for women who won’t call penis female. Words need to have shared definitions, even if bad people mis-use them. What’s that? Penis is *defined* as a male organ? Oops.”
Like I said. The reason is to see what it says.
Send me a list of what other blogs you read and why,
I want to know. What have you got to hide?
I need the information to judge you.
Why are you delaying? Why aren’t you sending me the list?
When I get the list it might say some bad things about you in my opinion.
And if I don’t get the list, it might say some things about you in my opinion.
(You know what I just sounded like? An asshole. That’s what.)