Some of the arguments made in this piece are thought provoking. Unfortunately, the author regularly undermines his or her position with throwaway lines that can only be described as snarky. A presentation based on the facts comes across as reasoned argument, but snarkiness and ridicule smack of bias and undercut the author’s credibility.
Some of the arguments made in this piece are thought provoking. Unfortunately, the author regularly undermines his or her position with throwaway lines that can only be described as snarky. A presentation based on the facts comes across as reasoned argument, but snarkiness and ridicule smack of bias and undercut the author’s credibility.
“I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD.”
“Say what you will about Strangio, at least he’s salt of the earth.”
“These ambitions are grandiose and, to people like me who compulsively make fun of queer folks, threatening.”
“I think ACLU attorneys got comfortable making illogical arguments propped up by rhetorical tricks that were more honorable but less sophisticated than hypnosis because these arguments helped them win.”
“From that moment on, Brooke’s parents pretended that he was a girl.”
In addition, the piece is riddled with biased terms such as “cosmology,” “plucked” and “loot.”
Why shouldn’t she snark? This is the stupidest shit on the planet. I’m betting that if I wrote a screenplay about this and invented a transsexual supervillain called “Chase Strangio” Netflix or Max or whatever would turn me away for being too over-the-top.
One of the things that chaps my ass about this whole movement is how it has bleached people’s brains with humorlessness. We should be able to laugh at wokescolds & men in charity shop castoffs and lippy -- because they’re HILARIOUS. Pretending they’re not is just as offensive to me as telling me I MUST recognize them as women. Can’t wait for my copy of Graham Lineman’s book.
The only problem with “I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD" is that it was a less than perfect snarky answer to the question "What are queer rights, anyway?"
The line missed the mark because it didn't draw upon all that's ridiculous about most queers and on what's preposterous about so-called queer theory.
In the scheme of things, though, this is a very minor quibble. In any case, the author didn't set out to write a dispassionate and objective piece comparing and contrasting the nature of the ACLU's advocacy in the Arkansas case with that of the opposing party. It was his or her aim to explicate and criticize the ACLU's mendacity and in that he or she succeeded admirably.
I enjoyed them, and I think the conventional dispassionate scientific tone to the “debate” is useless. Trans people have morphed over 50 years in front of me into violent, women-abusing homophobic child torturers. You don’t win the rhetorical debate with “factually incorrect” and “let me clarify”.
Americans need to learn British skill in making absolutely withering statements which are easy to repeat.
“Better trans than dead.” Is an example.
The terms of the debate are not being controlled, and devilish humor really can’t be fought.
Some of the arguments made in this piece are thought provoking. Unfortunately, the author regularly undermines his or her position with throwaway lines that can only be described as snarky. A presentation based on the facts comes across as reasoned argument, but snarkiness and ridicule smack of bias and undercut the author’s credibility.
example?
“I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD.”
“Say what you will about Strangio, at least he’s salt of the earth.”
“These ambitions are grandiose and, to people like me who compulsively make fun of queer folks, threatening.”
“I think ACLU attorneys got comfortable making illogical arguments propped up by rhetorical tricks that were more honorable but less sophisticated than hypnosis because these arguments helped them win.”
“From that moment on, Brooke’s parents pretended that he was a girl.”
In addition, the piece is riddled with biased terms such as “cosmology,” “plucked” and “loot.”
Why shouldn’t she snark? This is the stupidest shit on the planet. I’m betting that if I wrote a screenplay about this and invented a transsexual supervillain called “Chase Strangio” Netflix or Max or whatever would turn me away for being too over-the-top.
One of the things that chaps my ass about this whole movement is how it has bleached people’s brains with humorlessness. We should be able to laugh at wokescolds & men in charity shop castoffs and lippy -- because they’re HILARIOUS. Pretending they’re not is just as offensive to me as telling me I MUST recognize them as women. Can’t wait for my copy of Graham Lineman’s book.
Policing language and tone is policing thought
The only problem with “I think it’s that thing where college kids get extra time on exams if their Mom pays a doctor to say they have ADHD" is that it was a less than perfect snarky answer to the question "What are queer rights, anyway?"
The line missed the mark because it didn't draw upon all that's ridiculous about most queers and on what's preposterous about so-called queer theory.
In the scheme of things, though, this is a very minor quibble. In any case, the author didn't set out to write a dispassionate and objective piece comparing and contrasting the nature of the ACLU's advocacy in the Arkansas case with that of the opposing party. It was his or her aim to explicate and criticize the ACLU's mendacity and in that he or she succeeded admirably.
ok.. thanks for your honesty
So write your own.
I enjoyed them, and I think the conventional dispassionate scientific tone to the “debate” is useless. Trans people have morphed over 50 years in front of me into violent, women-abusing homophobic child torturers. You don’t win the rhetorical debate with “factually incorrect” and “let me clarify”.
Americans need to learn British skill in making absolutely withering statements which are easy to repeat.
“Better trans than dead.” Is an example.
The terms of the debate are not being controlled, and devilish humor really can’t be fought.