I guess this is where he went wrong.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I guess this is where he went wrong.
Assuming there isn't some better reason for rejecting it than we're aware of, which currently seems rather unlikely given they aren't challenging his version of events, then it is disappointing.
Even if it just ended up as a study of 'people who had transitioned to men and reverted to living as women without having surgery', which seems likely, it could've been useful research.
Even if it just ended up as a study of 'people who had transitioned to men and reverted to living as women without having surgery', which seems likely, it could've been useful research.
Just me who waited a bit thinking it takes time for gif to load? 
Yeah if this hasn't been explored much then surely it's important research. I'm all for people being able to transition but if there are people regretting their decision to do so then potentially identifying warning signs of that or reasons why it might be happening can only be benificial for the community. In my non expert opinion of course.
More spineless uni fearing a social media frenzy than PC gone mad.
You mean the post below mine? Doesn't it amount to the same thing? Spineless uni worrying about PC?
Ah, yeah, sorry, quoted wrong post!
At the surface the reasoning may be sound, but they have jumped so far into the rabbit hole with their categorization and generalization of people it has lost all meaning. Also, they conveniently leave out one particular "privilege": Class privilege, i suspect because if they included it most of them had to fecking check it.
To put it this way, in their eyes Beyonce (who is a POC and a woman) is less privileged (a lot less) than some homeless white bloke who lives under a bridge
I don't challenge the notion that belonging to certain groups generally can put you at a disadvantage, but i think it's a lot more fruitful to help those who need help and look past whatever labels they fall under
Uh, that's just not true.
Also not true.
Is that even possible? How are you going to help anyone if you don't who they are or what their life has been? This kind of logic, though clearly well intended is just nonsense. You wouldn't ask a doctor to give everyone the same treatment, because that doesn't work. So why would social work be any different?
Which of these descriptions of the same person will lead you find the most suitable help:
A: Homeless, foreign born female, 34 years old, 2 kids, speaks conversational English, husband deceased. She has a history of mental health issues and is inclined not to trust social workers due to racial abuse she has received since becoming homeless.
B: A person who needs help.
Obviously it's description A, because knowing even a little about who someone is and what they're faced with is much more helpful than running away from long words a lefty on the internet used.
Last edited:
Only just catching up on the thread now. But I really don't think this happens any more often than it did 10 or 20 or 50 years ago. Maybe they have bigger platforms thanks to the likes of twitter, but that's about it. There's even a monty python sketch about this sort of thing, about working class men from Yorkshire. It's the "My dad is harder than your dad" thing, it exists everywhere and in every group. Like many things feminists are supposedly guilty of, this is just another average human behaviour.
No she hasn't. You can buy tickets to her upcoming public events right now. She also appears on TV every now and again and still has articles published in the Guardian.
Last edited:
Show me proof of a self proclaimed "intersectional feminist" speaking about class privilege and i will immediately concede.
Also, either you are willfully disingenuous or you simply misunderstood. A persons skin color or sex might or might not be relevant too whether they need (or deserve) help. If someone experienced abuse as a child and later developed a drug problem, i don't quite see how skin color is relevant. It's simply an individual in need of help.
A persons "labels" is not irrelevant, but it's not the be all end all either of what that persons lived experiences or needs are. Imo, it's an unnecessary sterotyping
I wouldn't even know where to begin finding a self proclaimed intersectional feminist, but here's a whole bunch of articles on google scholar for you look at. https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola...nality+class+gender&oq=intersectionality+clas
Neither, but I'm not ignorant of people from different backgrounds having a difference experience in life from me. For example, if this individual is a woman then she has also most likely been sexually abused as an adult. If the individual is from a racial minority they have been denied opportunities that the racial majority takes for granted.
Well first of all, stop putting quotation marks where they don't belong. And that's not what stereotyping is. The venn diagram of intersectionality serves specifically to stop stereotyping. "Yes, I'm X and have a similar experience to other X's, but I'm also Y and share their experience, I'm also O and share their experience and I'm also a little bit K and share some of their experience".
Im a little bit country. But also a little bit rock and roll.
Got a fair few friends who fulfil your criteria there.
That would be me. Hello
I love how it's always Beyonce who is used as the example of the ultra privileged black woman, and it's always a homeless white guy as the antithesis for her. I think this is the third time in the last month or so I've seen this written on here alone.
Firstly, privilege isn't about money, lets just stop that narrative right there.
Also class isn't a good indicator - how exactly do you define the difference between working class, middle class and lower middle class?
Is it based purely on economic factors? And if so, to what extent? Salary? Net Worth? Assets?
Secondly, using one example of a rich black or POC celebrity versus a hypothetical poor white person - doesn't automatically negate the oppression that that entire marginalised group faces.
Thirdly, since we're using celebrities, two just off the top of my head
Dr Dre (worth 800million) a man came onto his property, called the cops and those cops searched dr dre and put him into handcuffs, after the trespasser blocked dr dre's driveway, said dr dre had a gun and then performed a citizens arrest.
LeBron James (worth 400 million) recently had the N word sprayed on his garage.
These are examples of how being rich doesn't mean you don't face discrimination because of what you look like - also leading on from the point that privilege isn't about wealth. I'm sure there's countless more if I was to look into it (actors & actresses being type cast into very few minority roles comes to mind for example)
Yes it is. The socio-economic background you're born into is a good indicator of how you will do in life.
Yeah, it pretty much is all about money. The amount of money you have now is a good indicator of how much money you will have in the future. The Plantagenets are still rich as feck a millennia later.
It doesn't have to be one or the other. There are certain places and times when being white will give you an advantage over being non-white, all else being equal. There are other times and places when having a posh accent will give an advantage over a working-class accent, and will override any racial considerations. There are times when being male will override all of these considerations. It depends on the context of any given situation, no?
I should rephrase - it isn't just about money. Money can have an effect, yes - but when marginalised groups talk of privilege, they are not speaking only on a monetary basis, hence what happened to Lebron and Ice Cube as an example.
Yeah, it may be that twitter gives randomers like me an insight into the sort of inane bickering we’d previously have been blissfully unaware of. It’s hilariously childish, either way. And the way it’s all out in the open now is probably harmful to their cause.
Re Germaine Greer, I wasn’t claiming she’d been kidnapped and locked in a cupboard.
Was a time I would consider that possibility alright. No more. Not any more. We need to support a kinder, more inclusive world more than ever in this moment in history. Fascists on the rise everywhere. This attack on 'political correctness' has become one of he slogans of the looney right, led by Drumpf himself.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is to say PC has stifled debate and made it harder for people to speak their minds, which has led to increasing frustration - and thereby increased the probability of things like Trump and Brexit.
Not saying that's how I see it necessarily. I think the truth is too complex to be summarised in a couple of sentences. But I've heard that case made and I think there's at least an element of truth in it.
You are singularly the most reasonable person I have ever encountered in the Caf.
I'm not sure it's entirely harmful. There was a time when the public face of feminism was middle class white women representing their personal interests, and all power to them. But it's a good thing that there's more different perspectives out in the open now. It's no different to major political parties having various different voices in them, the so called broad church.
Nah that's bollocks and not borne out by the voting data which paints much more traditional political reasons for people voting the way they do. I.e, higher earners voting for the tax cut candidate in Trump. And places with fewer immigrants, but relatively higher rates of immigration voting for Brexit. There's zero statistical data to support PC culture influencing votes. As far as I tell, that line of logic was born in the backwaters of the internet as a way for the far right to wind up the far left.
And the left's tendency to take defeat personally and obsessively soul search for where we went wrong.
@Silva I certainly haven't looked at any stats. And I don't know much about the US situation. But it certainly feels like the inability of the mainstream parties to talk sensibly about race / immigration played a huge role in the rise of UKIP, and by extension on the fact we had a referendum and how that vote went. So I think there is a connection. But yeah, can't back it up with data.
The BBC, 538 and some polling companies had quite extensive breakdowns following the votes. And the referendum wasn't explicitly a UKIP project. The conservative party has had a sizeable eurosceptic contingent since practically forever. The referendum was David Cameron's attempt to unify the party and galvanise his base more than pandering to UKIP. UKIP's showing in the EU election might have played a role - but above all it was Cameron's trademark arrogance that led to the referendum.
That would be me. Hello
I love how it's always Beyonce who is used as the example of the ultra privileged black woman, and it's always a homeless white guy as the antithesis for her. I think this is the third time in the last month or so I've seen this written on here alone.
Firstly, privilege isn't about money, lets just stop that narrative right there.
Also class isn't a good indicator - how exactly do you define the difference between working class, middle class and lower middle class?
Is it based purely on economic factors? And if so, to what extent? Salary? Net Worth? Assets?
Secondly, using one example of a rich black or POC celebrity versus a hypothetical poor white person - doesn't automatically negate the oppression that that entire marginalised group faces.
Thirdly, since we're using celebrities, two just off the top of my head
Dr Dre (worth 800million) a man came onto his property, called the cops and those cops searched dr dre and put him into handcuffs, after the trespasser blocked dr dre's driveway, said dr dre had a gun and then performed a citizens arrest.
LeBron James (worth 400 million) recently had the N word sprayed on his garage.
These are examples of how being rich doesn't mean you don't face discrimination because of what you look like - also leading on from the point that privilege isn't about wealth. I'm sure there's countless more if I was to look into it (actors & actresses being type cast into very few minority roles comes to mind for example)
Sorry got caught up in work and did not have time to respond. My problem with intersectionality is that i can't see how it strengthens either (or any cause) by lumping all these social issues together under one umbrella, and quite often it does lead to a catch 22 situation where you get caught in between different social issues under the same umbrella
Take feminism and racism for example, no denying they are huge problems in our society still and worthy of fighting for on their own, but mixing them together and it kinda muddies the water a bit. The best example being womens rights for muslim women, on one hand there are some pretty obvious issues with womens rights there, but many western intersectional feminists would not touch it with a barge pole because they might risk being accused of racism and thus ostracized by their peers.
Ayyan Hirsi Ali (a woman i really admire) has pointed this out time and time again and has actually gotten some pretty nasty vitriol in return.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/13105...ic-ayaan-hirsi-ali-calls-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hirsi-ali-slams-feminisms-trivial-bs/article/2556419
I've also seen more ridiculous examples of intersectionality, like this one:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/12/animal-rights-feminist-issue/
Of course there is no issue with being concerned with both woman and animal rights, but attempting to lump them together and then gaslight people who don't see it your way is quite intellectually dishonest. I've seen several tweets for example from feminist who claim that unless you're also a vegan, you're not really a feminist, which is just mental. Too me it seems that many of these people are just virtue signaling to stroke their own ego, and all this bickering leads to no good.
And vi1lain, i can't agree with that bolded part at all as growing up in a wealthy, well educated home significantly increases your chances of succeeding in life compared to someone who grows up in poverty.
When it comes to the Beyonce/random homless bloke comparison, yes i get that it's a tired cliche, but it's just an example. In general, yes a white man has it a hell of a lot easier than a black woman, but it does not have to be that way
I read a couple of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's books, a very interesting perspective.
Social issues don't exist in a vacuum. And analysing one thing at a time is fine, but analysing as many things as possible and contextualising them is even better.
No it doesn't. If you're a woman from a minority background those issues will be linked and you'll often experience both simultaneously. It's not like people are going to treat that woman as either A) a woman or B) someone from a minority background. You're both all the time.
That is fair criticism of their personal work. But the problem is that they're ignoring an important part of the venn diagram, rather than it existing.
There are ridiculous examples of every type of analysis. For example there have been plenty of terrible and incorrect mathematical writings, many by myself, but 2+2 is still 4 and mathematical analysis itself is still good.
That's exactly what you're doing here.
Last edited:
I never said they existed in a vacuum, but that does not mean you need to mix together several social issues and expect you fix them all at once. Take "occupy Wall Street" and more recently "march for science". At the start they dealt with mostly one issue, one clear message but as times went by they got co-opted by several other groups with their own agenda and that clear message got drowned and it died out without accomplishing much.
Of course any one individual belongs to several categories, but say if a black woman is subjected to sexism at the workplace that means she was subjected sexism, not necessarily racism. If a person is subjected to racism, their gender is not really relevant. Of course there are instances where someone can be subjected to several prejudices and sterotypes at once, but that does not mean we should try to tackle them all at once. Venn diagram or not, it does not change the fact that intersectional social justice often ends up with contradictory paradoxes. One example is gender neutral bathrooms, pro-trans people are happy about that, but plenty of feminists are not. Another one is the "manspreading" law they introduced in New York, which overwhelmingly has affected minority men.
And how exactly am i virtue signaling? By not thinking intersectionality is a good idea? In principle i don't object to it, in fact fighting for several social issues at the same time is admirable, but i don't think it's effective for two reasons.
1. Focusing on several (and often conflicting) issues at once dilutes the message and makes it hard to accomplish anything. Fight one battle at at time
2. These kind of grand theories are so big they are nearly impossible to unify. Either you torture both your theory and the facts until neither mean anything or your theory collapses under the weight of change.
History has shown that when people unify under one banner for one clear cause (civil rights movement comes to mind) you get results.
The article Pogue posted a couple of pages back shows the backside off intersectionality, some of the most liberal universities and professors there is, are getting ripped to shreds by their own students because they are not progressive enough. Young people have always challenged the authorities, but i can't really see how this is a good thing.
The vast majority of movements fail, and they all fail for different reasons. So I don't see what that has to do anything.
Sure, in this example where she's only subject to one or the other. In the real world, women from minority backgrounds tend to be subject to both.
Yes it does.
I think the phrase contradictory paradox might be a contradictory paradox.
I don't see how this is contradictory. Some people disagreeing with each other isn't a contradiction.
I tried to google this but was unable to find anything about that the law affecting minority men. Broken windows policing does impact minorities, which might have been what you mean. But then, that would be a fault with the policing and implementation of the law rather than an intrinsic fault of the law itself.
To paraphrase your posts here "No, no, no - this is how you make things betters". How is that any different to the people you accuse of virtue signalling for saying "No, no, no - this is how you make things better"
It's not any kind of battle though. Intersectionality is a way to analyse social issues. It's a way of working out how the different boxes people fall into create unique obstacles for them. It's also not a grand theory, and is an analysis model that is perfectly adaptable to change because the very point of it is analyse scenarios with different variables.
The civil rights movement wasn't a unified one. There were multiple factions with different aims. It wasn't all inspiring speeches by what have now become admired historical figures.
Alright there every old person in history. Youngsters now are the worst, sure.
It's easier to accomplish one goal than several right? One clear, focused message is easier to get through than several ones. Womens rights had nothing to do in a march about anti-scientific attitudes and vice versa.
Disagreeing about something is not necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of people in intersectional SJ seems to be more than happy to use those disagreements as a cudgel to bludgeon other people with. This link Pogue posted perfectly shows the issue:
https://www.economist.com/news/unit...ft-clashes-can-be-equally-vitriolic-arguments
A sad truth is that diversity and equality are inherently contradictory so fighting for both (like intersectional SJ does) is a battle you can't win. And since the umbrella of social issues keeps growing you are bound to end up in a battle with yourself.
And the "using different boxes people fall into" has been around since the 60's in sociology as an analytical tool (if not earlier), i think we both can agree that todays intersectionality is being used in a broader context than just analysis.
Look, as i said i think fighting for multiple social issues is a good thing, and i have no problem with intersectionality being used in analysis, but i firmly believe that trying to bundle together and fight lots of issues at once is less effective than focusing at one issue at a time. I also think that looking at social issues through such a big lens and then comparing them to cultural/societal variables makes it hard to pinpoint where you should focus your attention.
Both those marches were also about as effective as Occupy Wall Street.
Protestors at some US universities have a grand total feck all to do with intersectionality.
No they're not.
Both diversity and equality are better now than in the past. So I don't know know what you're talking about.
That sounds like one of those good problems.
The only vaguely real-world example I can think of is EUFA's respect campaign. And I don't know how disassembling it into its component goals would be good for anyone involved.
Last edited:
Only if you talk about a repressive concept of equality, one that forces heterogeneous people into a one-size-fits-all role. But there can be no real equality without the possibility to be individually different from each other.
I still dont believe equality does or can exist tbh.
I think humans are fundamentally wired towards hierarchy's
sorry just a random thought, carry on
I think humans are fundamentally wired towards hierarchy's
sorry just a random thought, carry on
Doesn't mean you can't strive to attain it. We're never going to have a society where everyone is literally equal, but the amount of inequality we do have can and should be hugely decreased. It wouldn't really be that hard either, if it was truly desired by the people who are in power
Maybe the reasons for the inequality should be changed, and the range of the lowest to the highest.
Give everyone opportunities but ... every human endevour is built on a hierarchy,
and it tends to make sense or work better than an everyones opinion is equal committee type deal.
Would it be so terrible to just go with a relatively small level of inequality?
Accept that those who've benefitted from a better level of education and are ... ambitious or whatever are going to have a better life and whatnot.
Maybe push aside the general harrasment, disrepect part of it to one side as being generally unhelpful and cruel
I guess it all adds up to the same thing really, your still seeking to make things more equal regardless.
That sounds like exactly what we have now. Basically just not socialism. I think it's the other aspects of inequality, the more ugly things like prejudice that are the target, since most sensible people above the age of 15 agree that socialism is a bad idea.
Because you say so? This is not at all an isolated incident
It's true that both are better, but 50 years ago society was dominated by old white men, so it could not really get much worse. Also i am talking about equality in the strictest sense, not necessarily justice. Take affirmative action for example, it's good for diversity for sure, but it's not really equal since it means people compete on uneven terms. Asian-Americans for example need to score a lot higher on their tests to compete on the same terms as other groups.
Debate is all well and good, but we both know it often gets a lot nastier than that and i've seen activists throw under activists under the bus plenty of times. When it comes the the respect campaign it was initially about fighting racism and discrimination in football, a pretty clear goal imo. Now on the other hand they want to include several other issues as well and i think it might weaken the original cause.
Much of the basis of intersectionalism is based on subjective interpretations of oppression, which quickly becomes difficult when people in the same categories have different interpretations of similar events. Not only does it make it difficult to create a common actionable cause based on such subjective testimony. This can be said for any one form of oppression, but it goes from difficult to monumentally difficult with intersectionality when you have all these overlapping categories.
Second, intersectionality creates a unified idea of anti-oppression politics that requires a lot out of its adherents, often more than can be expected from imperfect humans. If you are expected to take everyone into consideration you become paralyzed in semantics and theory and once you start pulling in one direction it can lead to contradictory recommendations and if it does not end up in internal conflict, it often ends up in conflict with other areas.
Take the "body positivity movement", a part of intersectionality i'm sure you'd agree. Promoting body positivity is fine, but it quickly ends up in conflict with standard medical advice, because despite people not deserving to get bullied for their body, we all well know that obesity is an ever growing problem in the western world. Some of these body positivists also has advocated for heavy people getting the same rights as disabled people, which the latter group (also someone under the big umbrealla) is not too happy about.
I am not in any way opposed to the idea of fighting all social issues, but i don't think intersectionality is the way to do it. I bet we could debate it's merits for ages and not come to an agreement.