i saw some p well handled discourse once where
person A had an opinion on something to do w transmisogyny
person B says thats not a valid opinion
person A defends themself and also mentions being trans
person B backtracks and is like “oh well its okæ if you’re trans”
person A is like ? i think opinions should generally be considered independently from the identities of the person who holds them
and i think about that post a lot. like. obviously being non binary gives me additional insight into the ~non-binary experience, but I don’t think that actually should mean people have to give me a free pass if i say something offensive. most trans meds are trans people, and i don’t really think their trans-ness validates their opinions at all.
the position with the best logical conclusion as far as i see it is that opinions should be evaluated semi-independently of the person who holds them.
also ? internalized [oppression]ism exists; there are many men i would rather talk about feminism with than women because there are many women with enough internalized misogyny to prevent them from accurately reflecting on whether a certain opinion/product/action is misogynistic.
i remember defending BLM in high school and having 1 of the 2 black kids in my grade tell me that BLM is violent and unhelpful. i think i just stopped talking, which was probably the best course of action in an in-person, interpersonal scenario. but situations like this come into play online all the time. how can we best respond when instead of just shutting up, we have the option of continuing the conversation elsewhere ?
of course the “semi-” in “semi-independently” is the tricky and iffy part, and i don’t really know at what point i want to delineate. certainly all members of X marginalized group have meaningful contributions to that groups’ cultural narrative; ie, have a valuable answer to “what does it mean to be X” even if the answer is “be faithful to my husband and dutiful to my children and the Lord.”
