Nobody said that Scott should only link to pieces of writing he approved of. People were critical of him because it sounded as though he approved of a piece of writing that was not all that good. They all stated reasons for their low opinion, too. Here’s my short list: it’s intellectually dishonest; it’s shallow; it’s it states two positions inaccurately; it’s disrespectful, and not only of competing arguments.

This also isn’t a trivial or invisible issue–not to the people involved, anyway. Many other bloggers have written posts on the topic that are better. It’s not a good idea to pluck out a crap recap of the discussion; the likely result is more, not less, misinformation.

Finally, no, Donna is not saying that only emotional words are effective. She’s rebutting a false dichotomy between valuable words and angry words. Jasper repeated some very transphobic tropes. Then ze said that nobody would be allowed to say anything angry on his comments thread, because, you know, more heat than light and so forth. That’s bullshit. It’s possible to speak dispassionately about something close to you, but it’s unfair to place that burden on someone else.

On the subject of personal writing: Donna is creating some false either/or distinction between “calm, cool, collected” academese and passionate personal writing. I’d just hold up Joan Didion or Anne Dillard or Toni Morrison or bell hooks as examples of personal writing — or writing motivated by personal issues — that is particularly effective because of the reflective distance it creates between first-hand lived experience (whatever *that* is in the age of total mediation) and writing about it. I mean, write however you want, really. But don’t be fooled that writing “passionately” is justified because it’s writing about the self (as if one can only be worked-up by what affects the self, or that one should not be worked up by that which affects others). It’s either effective writing or it’s not.

Scott, I don’t envy you the role you’ve taken on over here. It already seems as if you’ve been forced to be far more “sensitive,” to back off more from your positions, than I’ve ever seen in your writing or on-line personae.

This also should have been a big warning sign, “The term cis privilege is used to silence all critiques of brain sex activism.” That is on par with saying that people of color like to throw out the race card to silence white people.

The signs were all there that this was not going to be a respectful dialogue even before you found out that Jasper is not approving comments from people who disagree. And you should expect anger, and that people will be appalled when you misrepresent their lives, thoughts, and feelings. So hir other post about the heated discussion and how everyone must post calm, cool, collected comments about hir academic theories and uninformed speculation is also bunk. Trans people are talking about their actual lives, the reality. Telling them to calm down about the crap they put up with is not just disrespectful but callous and infuriating. You can not expect people to be able to put that kind of dispassionate distance into writing about their lived experiences the way that privileged people can when it’s just theory, assumptions, and speculation.

little light, as I hope you can tell from my update, I was wrong to do so.

Also, SEK, you’re holding up tone arguments as exemplary on a *feminist blog*? Seriously? Are you *familiar* with feminism?

Passingly. By which I mean, enough to know that it’s one thing to condemn a criticism for being shrill or hysterical, but another to welcome (albeit mistakenly here) two opposing parties when they discuss their differences in a civil manner. In short, you won’t ever hear me criticizing the tone of an aggreived party, but I will point out frank exchanges in which people with seemingly irreconciable differences come to understand more finely where they’re agreeing to disagree. That’s what I thought I was doing here—which is why I emphasized not the post, but the comments—but it turns out I was wrong. As I said in my update, I’m going to be wrong again, and given the complexity of the issues I’ll be linking to, it stands to reason that I will write and link to things people disagree with. I only hope people don’t attribute my decision to do so to malice.

So.

I was wrong to hold Jasper’s post up as a model.

Moreover, I was wrong to call it thoughtful.

piny is correct: in the future, I will call such posts thought-provoking or some derivative thereof. But as piny notes, there’s no way to discuss issues of gender essentialism lightly. It’s complicated in the abstract, and further challenged by the variety of lived experiences—right down to its very viability as a concept. I don’t claim to understand the swirl of issues in all their compounded complexity. (Full disclosure: my dissertation focused on issues of species and racial essentialism, so I well know that the problem here may be with the inviolability of essentialisms.) (Fuller disclosure: I finished my dissertation more confused about these issues than when I began it, so when I write things like, “No matter what I write, someone will be offended,” I include my nearly-immediate-future-selves in the party of that “someone.”)

So there’s nothing you possibly could’ve done to prevent this, right? Throw your hands up, “it was inevitable that someone is going to find something offensive,” you don’t have to take anything away from this conversation because that’s just how people are, right?

It is inevitable that someone will find something offensive. But I think you’re casting me as a hand-thrower a little early in the day. I considered that before, not after I posted the link; and I pointed to the comments that I could see, in particular, Lisa Harney’s comment, which was the last exchange on the site when I posted a link to it. Lisa’s extended response to Jasper is well worth reading, and I would have linked to it, but Lisa posted it only after I included the link to Jasper’s site here. In point of fact, a couple of the commenters criticizing me in this thread thanked Lisa for that post, which she might not have written had I not linked to Jasper. Not that I’m trying to annoy people on purpose, mind you, but I want to thank Lisa for her post too . . . which makes it sound like I’m trying to annoy people. I’m not. I promise.

So, answer a question for me: What in the motherfuck are you even doing here?

Posting links to items that concern complex issues, and hoping to foster productive discussion.

Someone may well have already called you a pretentious git (insults are always a pleasant welcome?!?) but I for one am looking forward to more of your posts as I really, really enjoy your writing style.

Thank you, HazyJane. And while insults may not be a pleasant welcome, some people always think I write like a pretentious git, so I’m used to it.

Someone may well have already called you a pretentious git (insults are always a pleasant welcome?!?) but I for one am looking forward to more of your posts as I really, really enjoy your writing style. I guess this style of prose isn’t for everyone but jeez, some people are RUDE.

Ah, so we’re judging by tone and style rather than content when it comes to selecting articles, essays, and blog entries for praise on the Feministe front page now?

Interesting.

“You’re interested in a different subject. That’s fine. The internet’s big enough to accommodate all interests.”

Right, i’m sure. The internet is big enough to accommodate lots of things, from feminist blogs to rape porn for Nazi fetishists.

But is Feministe really, do you think, the place to “accommodate” the masturbatory, blithe, cissexist theorizing of cissexual people about What Transsexual People Think?

“I knew that no matter what post I chose to link to, the content would be offensive to some…”

So there’s nothing you possibly could’ve done to prevent this, right? Throw your hands up, “it was inevitable that someone is going to find something offensive,” you don’t have to take anything away from this conversation because that’s just how people are, right?

So, answer a question for me: What in the motherfuck are you even doing here?

“Thoughtful” doesn’t necessarily equal “correct.” I grade student papers comprised of thoughtful insanity all them time. What matters when dealing with difficult issues isn’t whether you agree with your interlocutor, but whether he or she frames the argument in a way that fosters future debate. I think Jasper’s post did, and that the tenor of the responses (and apologies) to commenters proved that. If you want to take issue with my characterization of that particular rhetorical stance, you’re more than welcome to, and I’m happy to discuss the matter more.

“Thoughtful” and “thoughtful but insane” are different things, aren’t they? It did sound like you were straight-up complimenting the post.

That’s not how I would define “thoughtful.” Thought-provoking, maybe. And, well, so was Sarah Palin’s farewell manifesto. Controversy can be useful, but not all controversial things are smart.

I can believe that Jasper was honestly trying to say true things about an important subject, but the way it was done was not well-reasoned, conscientious, or respectful of other viewpoints. There is a lot of virtual ink out there on this subject, and I did not see very much detailed–heck, even sourced–engagement with any of it. That would have been a thoughtful approach; this was not. The post did characterize trans people and inter-community disagreements unfairly, from what I’ve read, and it did not do so in a way that invited criticism.

If you want to open up a discussion about the thorny issue of gender essentialism, you should prepare for a long hard talk. It might be best to make it into a separate post, and one that includes more than one link from somebody who is, as LL said, criticizing another as an outsider.

First, I’m not able to see comments until they’ve been approved—at least, I don’t think I can see them, as I haven’t until they’ve shown up—so I haven’t approved or disapproved of any comments here.

You should be able to as a logged-in administrator–check “pending” on the dashboard; it will show you the comments that have gotten hung up in the cue.