Another Play-for-Today.

Academic DudeBros Hate JKRowling II

This one teaches history, as we'll see, he knows ALL about gender from the classes that he teaches, and he's VERY big on empathy. Except for women.

Scene 1:

Man: That bitch is the WORST.

Scene 2:

Woman: Um, I thought you were Mr Empathy.

Maybe your empathy is maybe not being equally distributed here bro?

Scene 3:

Man: But as well as believing in sex we also interpreted these goblins to emphatically prove she's evil.

Woman: It's interesting these two things make you think you can write this woman off when you're supporting a movement that violently threatens women.

Man: I didn't condone violence against women. I just fixated on these terrible things this transphobe has done while completely ignoring that the movement screaming about her transphobia regularly threatens women with violence.

Scene 3:

Woman: Here are some examples of the violent threats we are receiving. Do you think maybe these people are in the top 5 worse people on Twitter about Ms Rowling?

Man: I was just being hyperbolic.

Woman: Cool. So maybe you could stop casually demonising women that are trying to stand up to this and recognise that maybe we have decent political reasons why we are resisting this ideology?

Scene 4:

Man: Um, I teach gender so I'm sympathetic to maybe it being a bit oppressive and shit but *handwave*

Also, let me tell you how trans rights don't interfere with your rights while putting my fingers in my ears and going lalala while you explain otherwise.

By way of final flourish I will ridiculously assert that no one every illegitimately encroaches on other people's rights.

Scene 5.

Woman: Don't be ridiculous dude. All instances of colonisation are cases in which someone illegitimately encroaches on someone else's rights.

What's happening here is appropriation, and it's interesting that you don't see that, b/c it's kind of central to patriarchy.

Man: Wilfully misunderstands example to be making a claim to moral equivalence rather than being a structural analogy.

This is of some significance here. The left readily accepts that people are allowed boundaries. But just not women.

This is an interesting point.

Structurally, what the trans rights movement is doing is equivalent to the appropriative mechanisms of an act of colonisation.

That's not to say it's morally equivalent to an act of actual territorial appropriation and all the horror it involves.

HOWEVER. What interests me is that the left is currently in the grip of an almost totalising queerified 'no boundaries' discourse, complete with analogies to how all boundaries are like racism etc (apparently its fine for them to use the analogy there. Or at least, they are in

the grip of that discourse when it suits them - when they want to coerce women's boundaries, or when people try to pout up pretty much any sexual boundaries at all.

*At the same time*, the left also has a discourse about colonisation and appropriation, which is actually a

discourse about boundaries.

They don't believe that *all* people who assert rights over something being taken from them are oppressors.

Rather, it's that you are only allowed to assert that right *if* the left has *already decided you are then oppressed not the oppressor.*

This is how centrally the distortion of intersectional discourse is to trans activism. Because it is only by positioning women as the oppressor that the defence of their boundaries can be framed as an act of sovereigntist segregation and not as resistance to appropriation.

I do not in any way want to handwave the way women are implicated in perpetuating racial oppression.

However, I also need to point out how this discourse is being weaponised, *by males,* in order to justify the violation of women's boundaries.

As dude infers here, I'm a white woman, and so I don't get to complain about being appropriated and should just STFU. (HE TEACHES FEMINISM!!!!)

How fucking convenient for white males.

<End>

Oh yeah, then he blocked me. OF COURSE.