This Is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like

I'll just paste the following part:

Heterosexual white female Nora Berenstain of the University of Texas accused Tuvel of being a violent perpetrator:

“Tuvel enacts violence and perpetuates harm in numerous ways throughout her essay. She deadnames a trans woman [Bruce Jenner]. She uses the term “transgenderism.” She talks about “biological sex” and uses phrases like “male genitalia.” She focuses enormously on surgery, which promotes the objectification of trans bodies. She refers to “a male-to- female (mtf) trans individual who could return to male privilege,” promoting the harmful transmisogynistic ideology that trans women have (at some point had) male privilege.”

Words fail me.

Then they relabeled every bathroom in California as being "All Gender." What does that even mean? There are two genders. Sometimes, people from one gender decide to identify with another gender. Fine. Men who believe they are women can go in the women's room and vice versa. No need to invent the concept of "all gender."

So now I no longer find this funny. I read about transracialism and now I am worried this is also going to become mainstream and I am going to get publicly persecuted for questioning that as well.

America has lost it's mind. Really.

When do we actually start pushing back against this and begin saying: "No, you can't be transracial, that is a dumb idea and this is an idiotic thing to even entertain and I am not going to allow you to pretend this is real science."

Now would be good.

I don't believe the people making these arguments against Tuvel have chosen their position because of those arguments. I think there is some other political/power-oriented motivation, and the arguments are used instrumentally.

Any thoughts on what that source motivation might be? I have some notions but I don't know this sphere in detail.

---

Just speculating, one might think the academics want to avoid any change that would weaken the power the social justice race-guilt narrative has to control white men. They're afraid that if transracialism becomes accepted, whites will identify as non-whites to claim their privileges (e.g. affirmative action, argumentative deference, etc).

Just imagine millions of white men identifying as mixed-race and then everyone having to accept that on pain of being called racists or transracialphobic. That's a nightmare scenario for the social justice crowd because it takes away their main permanent advantage in the culture wars: the ability to call people racist.

But... that would seemingly also apply to transgenderism. So why the difference?

Maybe transgenderism isn't considered a threat because identifying as a woman is too much of a jump for a normal man. A dude doesn't want to act like a woman, even if it helps him get hired at Intel. It would ruin his status and sexual appeal. You have to dress like a woman, and maybe even take hormones. It's just too weird. But simply identifying as mixed-race would be much easier for a man to do without changing any behavior or losing status. (Heck, I've met lots of white->black quasi-transracial kids from the suburbs who love gangsta rap... They're halfway there already.)

At the same time, the academics may like transgenderism because it helps to weaken the public belief in traditional gender roles. It's perfect social constructionism: If everyone can be a man/woman, man/woman have no roles, no characteristics, nothing. Masculine and feminine become no more than fashion statements. Transracialism lacks this "advantage" because the notion of racial social roles was already rightly destroyed a long time ago.

This feels like a rough thesis though.

They aren't pursuing economic value or understanding of nature; they're examining the social world we're living in. If the author had missed her target, the paper would likely get no attention. Looking back at history, anybody who made claims that were ahead of their time would likely be proud to be able to say, “I caused an uproar when I said it”.