[ SECRET POST #3535 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3535 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #505.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

anon from before, now on my computer. I'm only responding to the first article because the second one looks like a whole website and I'm not going through a whole thing when I don't even know how long it is. So, please forgive me for that.

First of all, I am highly skeptical, in general, of arguments of the form "x is like a cult" - or more broadly, the idea of something taking on a religious characteristic or being like a religion. The problem is that it overfits. As the essay points out, any ideology can be viewed as totalist, at times. Any ideology can be used as a nesting-bed for toxic and harmful structures of power and abuse. I tend to think that any theoretical structure can, on some level, be regard as religious, particularly by someone unsympathetic to it (further exploration of this idea, however, is probably outside the scope of this conversation; but I would point out that it would certainly be possible to characterize the ideology espoused in these essays as religious). It is also my view that, in general, Internet communication and social group formation tend to have a few common patterns of dysfunction - for instance, 'call outs' and shitty emotional arguing. It's very hard for me to take seriously the claim that those are distinctive features of a particular ideology, much less that they're indicative of a basic flaw with it.

And going through the article as it works out what a cult looks like, it certainly seems to me - for instance - that the discussion of "stars" and leaders and later the discussion of milieu control seems hard to distinguish from a more general, and less insidious, concept of in-groups and out-groups. And I think that's a common danger to run into, particularly if you're ill-disposed towards an ideology.

So, for those reasons, I think there ought to be a very high bar here: something should really, really, really look like a cult before I think it makes sense to call it a cult. Those characteristics need to be really highly developed. Because otherwise, you could say it about just about any ideology you don't like. And let me say, again, and specifically, that I think this is true in general and not just with regards to trans issues. This is just something where my degree of skepticism is intrinsically really high. And - I am sure you will be shocked to learn - I extremely do not think that anything in this essay comes close to making that case.

Second, I strongly disagree with the article's contention that the best explanation for the extreme reaction that many people have to TERFs has to do with trans* activism having a cult mindset. And there are a couple reasons for that. But I think one of the basic problems with the article is that it's written to a really remarkable extent from the point of view that the question regarding trans* people is basically settled and that the 'gender-critical' view is basically correct. And I think that is a major problem with the line of argumentation, because if you have that as an unquestioned assumption, it kind of blinds you to alternative explanations for what's going on (IE, people just disagree with you) and leads you instead to a mindset where you're searching for hidden explanations for why someone would deny the obvious truth (frankly, it's a point of view that I've always found kind of insulting - "there must be some hidden reason why the person I'm arguing with refuses to acknowledge that I'm obviously right!" - but that's besides the point).

One of the places where I think the article really does catch on to something that's basically true is with the idea that there's some fundamental difference between gender-critical theory and trans* stuff. Because, well, I think it is true: there is no real middle ground here. And that does breed a kind of extremism, a kind of partisanship. At the end of the day, gender-critical theory refuses to acknowledge the validity of trans* people's feelings (except, apparently, in rare cases). There is not a lot of room for compromise there. There's a fundamentally unbridgable gap between the 'gender-critical' position that trans* people are lying or mentally ill or being taken advantage of, and the trans* friendly position that this is not the case.

But I don't think it follows that a refusal to engage with gender-critical theory is a consequence of the fact that doing so would irreparably "disrupt" the basic ideas of trans* activism. Rather, it seems to me that it is more likely to be a logical consequence of the fact that the gap cannot be bridged. What - at that point - would be served by engaging with gender-critical ideologies, when no one on either side thinks that the other side could be converted? When there's no compromise possible, what - frankly - is the point? So it seems to me like, far from being undeniable evidence of a cult outlook, a lack of willingness to engage with gender-critical theorists is more or less what you would expect (especially since, unlike gender-critical theorists, trans* activists are more or less the majority of the feminist movement more generally).

The fact that trans activists are often part of the feminist movement brings me to another point: the reason for the forcefulness with which TERFs are often rejected. I think that most of this has less to do with cults than it does with the fact that TERFs are much ideologically closer to mainstream feminism than, for instance, neo-Nazis. As a result, it is much more necessary to do the work of distinguishing trans-accepting from trans-exclusive feminism. Indeed, it's not just the fact that they look extremely similar. It's that many people in the movement identify strongly and deeply with feminism as a movement and an identity. So it's not just a question of rejecting the claims of trans-exclusive feminists - it's a question of rejecting a whole understanding of feminism, really of rejecting the idea that trans-exclusive feminism should be understood as feminism and that it's something that they are associated with.

So, to me, the attitude towards TERFs - which is what the piece really seems to be complaining about, and which is the centerpiece of their argument regarding cults - does not need to be explained by trans acceptance being a cult. It is reasonably easy to account for through other means. So, to sum up, I very much don't agree with the idea that the trans movement is a cult, as depicted in this essay.

More generally, I would like to say that nothing in these pieces has given me any reason whatsoever to believe the TERF critique of trans people more generally, or to make me feel more inclined towards or sympathetic with TERFs. It makes sense to me in general to take a nuanced and broad view of human sex, gender in society, and the various relationships that individuals may have with those two things. The gender essentialism on which the accounts you've linked rely does not seem intrinsically correct even before taking into account the massive numbers of people who report immediate and intense experiences which are at odds with it. And attempting to account for those feelings by means of massive false consciousness and/or cult thinking and/or predatory gurus hypnotizing vulnerable youths is, frankly, insulting and dehumanizing. More than that, it is actively harmful to real people, while also being an unnecessary and idiotic distraction from getting to work on the structural gender issues that do still plague our society. I encourage you in the strongest possible terms to abandon it.

Good day.

[diet_poison]