On 2024-09-29 we met to talk about Chapters 0 and 7-9 of the 2022 book Cripping Intersex by Celeste Orr. This was a book that numerous people had requested we read, and we wound up with deeply mixed feelings about it. 😬
Overall reactions:
Michelle: I found the concept of “hauntology” incredibly compelling. I’m here for some shitposting. 🍵
Apollo: I loved the concept of compulsory dyadism. I found the downplaying of “perisex” as a term to be weird, and the lack of divulging intersex/disability status was weird.
Elza: the lack of diverging intersex/disability status wasn’t just weird, it was anathema to standpoint theory, and so every time Orr cited standpoint theorists, it made me seriously doubt Orr’s understanding of the theoretical basis that they actively chose to use 🧐. I was disappointed by this book. I agree with its central premise, so I should have been an easy sell. Instead I came out shaking, upset, feeling like Orr was a voyeur to our community, that Orr does not actually view intersex studies as a serious research area, that we’re just a theoretical fascination.
Remy: There were a lot of good points about how disability is socially constructed, but how Orr used “bodymind” detracted from their arguments for me. This book had a lot of uncomfortable conversations, some of them I was happy to read, some I need to come to terms with myself, while others I felt were treated a little too artificially equally such as the section with the phrase "the future is female" and the intersex community being involved in the queer community. 🤔
Bnuuy: it's really jarring how they approach the topic. There are a lot of pieces for a good theory here, but it’s kinda like Orr is just like the completely wrong person to go try to assemble them 🫤
As a collective, we generally were receptive (if not enthused!) about the central message that intersex benefits from disability studies/rights/justice perspectives, and that our community would benefit from more interaction with the disability studies/rights/justice communities! 💜
At the same time, we all agreed that Orr felt like a voyeur to our community. Rather than engaging with the intersex community, they seem to have a one-sided relationship where they read a bunch of things by intersex people but never actually conversed with intersex people. Whether Orr is intersex or not matters a whole lot less to us than whether Orr is actively participating in the community.
We made a lot of (unflattering) comparisons of Orr’s book to Envisioning African Intersex by Swarr, an intersex studies book by a perisex author. The latter is a great example of how a perisex scholar can do right by the intersex community: Swarr is clear about being perisex, clearly lays out her motivation for writing the book (she saw medical photography of intersex people, thought it was fucked up, later became friends with intersex activist Sally Gross, and then wanted to honour Gross’ memory after Gross died tragically.) Swarr was clearly connected to multiple African intersex organizations and made an explicit, deliberate choice to publish her book as open access so that the work could actually be read by the African activists she has been working with. Swarr’s perisex status matters a lot less than the fact that Swarr writes in a way that demonstrates personal investment in advancing intersex rights/justice.
Orr may or may nor be intersex. We don’t know. We don’t really care, because Orr doesn’t demonstrate personal investment in the intersex rights/justice/studies communities. That’s what actually matters to us, and it's what a lot of this post is going to talk about.
Underneath the cut we're going to go into a lot more detail about the book. There were things we liked about the book, and want to be fair in our assessment. Some of the complaints we had about the book hinge on an understanding of sociological theory and academic practices, so we'll give some context on those issues.
What we liked
This book had a bunch of things going for it.
The one thing this book did better than Swarr was its use of hauntology. Swarr invokes hauntology in her book, but not nearly as effectively as Orr does. Orr gets a lot of effective mileage out of how the spectre of intersex haunts people’s bodies. Not just intersex people’s bodies, but also the bodies of pregnant people who are called upon to exorcise the spectre of intersex through selective abortion should a foetus be identified as possibly intersex.
The haunting metaphor rung true for talking about how we intersex people are haunted by past surgeries, forced treatments, medical trauma, and so on. Even when we’re “done” with receiving gender-altering “treatments” we live with their ghosts every day.
We liked the explicit connections that Orr drew between intersex and disability studies. Elza in particular was warmed by the shoutout to how Garland-Thompson explicitly includes intersex in her disability studies work. We felt that Orr perhaps underestimates how receptive many intersex people would be to their central argument - Orr takes on a tone of “hey bear with my crazy radical argument” that we weren’t sure was really necessary.
Orr is not the first to make the argument that intersex organizing and scholarship would benefit from more alignment with the disability world. This gets into criticisms, but Orr isn’t the first to make this argument yet seems unaware of how regularly the argument comes up. Indeed there’s a whole chapter in Critical Intersex (2009) arguing that intersex is better off allying with the disability community than the queer community. It’s not hard to find intersex people on this very website arguing similar things. Intersex-support even has a whole section on it in their FAQ, though it does cite Orr (lol). Orr does at least seem aware of Koyama’s work making this argument.
We appreciated Orr calling out ableism in a lot of intersex organizing. When intersex people and organizations insist that intersex is NOT a disorder or disability, they conflate disorder and disability. This is an ableist conflation: disability activism tends to start from a place of resistance to the medical model of disability, whether it be by the social model or more recent ones like the political/relational model.
Intersex activists insisting that intersex is “NOT a disability” reinforce the idea that disability is a negative, tragic thing. It’s the “I’m not like the other girls” rhetoric: putting down people who experience the same oppression you do in an effort to gain some credibility. It holds our movement back, because ableism is a very potent part of how we intersex people are oppressed. Orr does an effective job of laying this out, and we recommend reading the first chapter for this.
Orr coins a term, temporarily endosex, to talk about how people can learn at any age or time that they have had intersex traits all along. (Another way in which intersex can haunt!). For Elza, the idea of temporarily perisex helped zer understand why perisex people can be *so* insistent in defining intersex as something visible at birth: because if intersex is something you can become at any age, this threatens perisex people with the possibility that they too could find themselves on the minority side of the tracks.
Other terms that Orr uses were big hits with the group. Elza loved “curative violence” and ze expects to get future mileage out of the term. Ze also liked the framing of IGM as medical malpractice. Apollo praised “compulsory dyadism” as a concept. Remy shared that the cyborg stuff in the book gave them a lot to think about.
The book features a takedown of eugenicist rhetoric by a bioethicist by the name of Sparrow. We all agreed that Sparrow’s arguments sucked, were grossly eugenicist, and welcomed that Orr had put in the work to rebut his hateful messaging. Michelle praised how they invoked Sparrow’s lists of undesirables that Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis is supposed to prevent: for xem, it evoked monstrosity identification theory and ideas of the abject.
Elza liked Orr’s argument that genital differences are a threat to the heterosexual (perisex) imagination: there’s so much porn out there that incorrectly presents intersex as “typical fully-developed penis plus typical fully-developed vagina” that really reflects how perisex people have a serious lack of imagination about genitals.
Fact Checking
There are a number of things that Orr says that we felt warrant an explicit fact check.
Orr presents the terms “perisex” and “endosex” as though they are contentious within the intersex community. They are not. The general consensus that one’s choice of perisex/endosex/dyadic is a question of personal preference and familiarity.
Orr clearly prefers the term dyadic, and makes a show of casting aspersions on “perisex” and “endosex”. They make it seem like their origins are disputed, and selectively cite Tumblr posts to make this argument. “Perisex” is actually the most common antonym to intersex on this very website, so it feels surreal that they're publishing the rare anti-“perisex” posts on this platform. Orr does correctly cite the Tumblr which coined “perisex”, the issue is they try to discredit it as a means to make it seem like this is not a term embraced by the intersex community.
Orr makes it seem like the origin of “endosex” is a suspicious mystery. It’s not. the term was first used in German in 2000 by Heike Bödeker. Bödeker is controversial for supporting autogynephilia 😬, but we've never seen anybody doubt Bödeker having mixed gonadal dysgenesis.
Orr clearly prefers the term “dyadic” and makes zero attempt to source the term, and the most minimal attempt at covering its controversy. This term actually does come from outside the intersex community! The term came from gender studies, popularized by 1970s radfem Shulamith Firestone. And it’s controversial for more than just being a laundering of “sex binary”.
Nobody calls it “ipso gender” anymore. It was coined as “ipso gender” but in actual usage has been “ipsogender” from basically as soon as the term was coined.
Orr uncritically repeats a quote which romanticizes home births in Black & Indigenous communities as that intersex-at-birth babies were accepted and cared for in a way that wouldn’t happen if the baby were born in hospital. This, sadly, is deserves scrutiny. We’re not saying it never happened: one can find stories supporting it. But the historical and sociological evidence show that infanticide of intersex infants has been widespread globally, and this includes traditional Black and Indigenous birth attendants. Collison (2018) as quoted in Swarr, reports that 88 of 90 traditional South African birth attendants they interviewed admitted to “getting rid” of a child if it was born intersex. That very story we just linked to about a Kenyan midwife saving intersex babies made the news because infanticide was the norm. In North America, some First Nations had similar traditions, e.g. the Navajo would leave intersex babies to die in arroyos, and the Halq’eméylem would leave them to die on a specific mountain. 😢
Michelle was visibly upset when talking about Orr’s repeated comments which insinuate that LGBT marriage equality was an attempt to fit in + liberalism + conformity. In Michelle’s words: “AIDS activists did not watch their lovers die for you to say that marriage equality is conformist bullshit. As a [polyamorous] person who is not legally married to xer spouses, I really felt that one, and I was intensely angry about how Orr was dismissing those activist efforts and the importance of them.”
The Voyeuristic Vibes
The consensus in the group was that Orr’s writing came off as voyeuristic of the intersex community. There were several points in the book where Orr seemed strangely disconnected from the intersex community. Sometimes it was small things, like spelling ipsogender as “ipso gender”, or favouring the term “interphobia” when “intersexism” is actually more popular in the community (it also avoids the potential casual ableism of framing bigots as clinically insane! Which you’d think a crip theorist would be sensitive to…. 👀)
Other times, it felt like a deeper, conceptual thing. For example, Orr’s top priority in future work was to apply their interpretation of intersex issues to critique how LGBT marriage equality was a homonormative, neoliberal, conformist movement. Not only was this viscerally upsetting to Michelle, for Elza it was galling that this is what Orr seems to think intersex perspectives are good for: pushing down other queer groups. 😬 It added to the sense that Orr saw us as a nifty theoretical lens, and wasn’t particularly interested in advancing the intersex cause.
Another disconnection that was noted was in how Orr rebutted Sparrow’s claims that genital differences are disgusting and will not elicit sexual desire in others. Despite detailed rebuttals to other appalling comments from Sparrow, Orr does not bring up the intense fetishization of intersex genital differences which is uncomfortably familiar to all of us. Objectifying medical photography of intersex people with genital differences are shared widely and known to be used for sexual purposes.
Bnuuy was annoyed that Orr seemingly didn't try to talk to or otherwise get input/feedback from any disabled intersex people for their thesis, given that disabled intersex people are not actually that hard to find! (Indeed, four out of five of us are both intersex and disabled.) Given Orr’s emphasis on intersectionality, it’s notable that when they sought intersex texts to analyse, they focused on texts from nondisabled intersex folks.
Orr does not reveal if they are intersex nor if they are disabled. It sticks out. Whether they’re actually intersex or not isn't actually that important to us. We’ve previously read intersex studies works by perisex authors which we loved, and we believe strongly that it is possible for perisex authors to do right by the community if they take the time to engage WITH the community. (See Swarr as an exemplar!)
What we had major problem with is the faux “objective” tone that the book takes on. Orr seems to be trying to hide behind academic language, the “view from nowhere”, and an expensive paywall. This was noticeable to everybody. But Elza, as the only academic in the call, came in with a lot more context as to why it felt gross.
The Misuse of Standpoint Theory
For Elza, Orr's “view from nowhere” became egregious when Orr cites standpoint theorists like Donna Haraway, Nancy Hartstock, and Pat Hill Collins. In a surreal move, Orr explicitly points to Haraway’s famous paper “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective”. This paper is an evisceration of the “view from nowhere”, “objective” approach to academic knowledge production. Every view is a view from somewhere, and pretending otherwise feeds into the history of how science has been violently used to gaslight and oppress minority groups.
In short, Haraway says:
Elizabeth explains that as result, feminist methodologies accept subjectivity as part of the process: the researcher is expected to articulate their own standpoint, to be transparent about their subjectivity rather than to hide it behind a pretense of “objectivity”. There’s an emphasis on reflexivity, the fancy word for when scholars reflect on how their own social position affects how they do their research.
Feminist disability studies and crip theory both build on feminist standpoint theory, and Orr claims to be using both. Both frameworks understand disability as socially constructed, and that this social construction is entwined with other social forces such as capitalism, sexism, racism, and so on. Feminist disability studies scholars like Wendell (who Orr cites) clearly position themselves and how their disability (or lack thereof) affects their research.
Crip theory builds further on feminist disability studies, and acts to subvert ideas of ability. It began in the arts - cripping performance art by having wheelchair users perform as dancers, blind people doing photography, Deaf people making music, etc. It spread into other domains, such as crip technoscience. Crip theorists also inherit the tradition of reflexivity, whether it be Eli Claire writing about their personal experiences of disability or Sami Schalk talking about how being nondisabled affects her work as a disability studies scholar.
We provide all this exposition to emphasize how unusual it is that Orr provides absolutely zero information about their positionality nor their personal motivations to this research. 🧐 They provide zero reflexivity as to how their position may have affected their work. Yet their personal biases and subjectivity seemed obvious to us - we were all, in varying ways, set off by Orr trying to pass off subjective opinion as “correct”. As an example, we mentioned how Orr clearly prefers the term “dyadic” and manufactures controversy about the origins of “endosex” and “perisex”, while at the same time conveniently leaving out the unsavoury origins of the term “dyadic”.
Elza pointed out that the ironic thing is Orr didn’t even need to invoke standpoint theory to make the argument that intersex studies would benefit from a disability studies lens. Plenty of intersex and disability studies is done using different frameworks.
Indeed, Elza was surprised that this kind of error made it through a PhD thesis defense. In the department where ze teaches, if a student displays a major misunderstanding about their chosen theoretical framework, the student would be asked to redo the relevant thesis checkpoints (e.g. candidacy paper, thesis proposal/defense) until they get it right.
Some background on academia
Elza brought up a structural problem with the book: it looks like it had zero intersex studies scholars review it prior to publication. 💀
This book originated as a PhD dissertation, which anybody can read for free here. A typical PhD programme is structured as a master-apprentice model of education, where a PhD student apprentices to one (sometimes two) professors. These are known as thesis advisors. The culmination of the PhD is a thesis (aka dissertation), which presents original research done by the student.
To graduate, the thesis needs to pass examination by a committee of professors. The committee acts as a secondary source of support to the student, providing guidance or perspectives to complement the advisors.
Elza explained that when ze assembles a thesis committee for one of zer graduate students, the goal is to ensure any area that the student is venturing into has at least one committee member who is well versed in it. So, let’s say you propose you’re going to do a thesis on “intersex studies meets disability studies” but your thesis advisors are both gender studies people (as Orr’s were). Elza would expect that Orr’s thesis committee would then include at least one disability studies scholar and at least one intersex studies scholar.
Instead, Orr’s thesis committee doesn’t have a single intersex studies scholar on it. Neither the book’s acknowledgements nor the thesis’ acknowledgments acknowledge any intersex studies scholars. Even though Orr is citing intersex studies scholars like Georgiann Davis, Morgan Holmes, and Cary Gabriel Costello, there's nothing to indicate that Orr has ever gotten feedback from any intersex people. This is HIGHLY unusual: normally, intersex studies books have acknowledgments which acknowledge several publicly intersex people, and often one or two intersex organizations.
Research is a highly social activity: researchers are expected to go to conferences, to be in conversation with people working on similar topics. And Orr is clearly social about their research, acknowledging the feminist/gender studies communities they have been a part of. It just seems like intersex studies scholars weren’t a priority for Orr’s academic socializing. 🙃
Orr’s acknowledgments doesn’t even contain the word intersex, which is unprecedented in our collective experience of intersex non-fiction. This is why Elza says that ze was left with the impression that Orr doesn’t think intersex studies is a serious field of research. It appears that Orr views intersex literature as something to be consumed for their benefit, and not a community worthy of participation and a bi-directional relationship.
Early in the book, Orr points to Lennard Davis’ work with the Deaf community on reframing Deaf activism away from the “we’re not disabled we’re a linguistic minority” rhetoric. It’s a great example of disability studies scholars having an impact. Thing is: Davis openly talks about how he grew up in a Deaf family that was part of the Deaf Community. While Davis is not little-d deaf, he took on the project as a member of the capital-D Deaf community. His writing (including book acknowledgments) reflect this.
Elza also pointed out that there are scripts and precedent in academia for how to handle positionality and reflexivity when you’re questioning or closeted. If Orr were closeted or questioning, they would have an excellent way to talk discreetly about it through their very own concept of “temporarily endosex”: Orr could write they don’t know they’re not perisex, frame it around how few perisex people actually know they’re perisex, and retain plausible deniability.
Other notes
Bnuuy was frustrated with the implication that disability studies is The Only Right Way to analyse intersex. It’s a useful lens for understanding intersex, but at times it felt like Orr was arguing it was the only appropriate lens rather than one of a collection of suitable lenses. Theories are analytic tools, and social phenomena are complex and fluid - it’s a matter of finding a suitable tool for a given research question, rather than there being One Correct Way to understand things.
Orr’s use of “bodymind” didn’t quite land. The term was created by Margaret Price to subvert the idea that body and mind are dichotomous: many disabilities cannot neatly fit into “mental” vs “physical”. It’s a term that’s had productive use in disability studies. But Orr’s use of it got a negative reaction. Remy pointed out it felt like it instead it actually reinforced the body-mind distinction. Intersex is, after all, a physical thing, and the idea of “brain intersex” is very poorly received by the intersex community - it’s seen as a way that perisex trans people appropriate intersex and/or live in denial about being perisex. It felt like Orr was using the word on autopilot rather than thinking about when and where it is actually subversive.
Bnuuy was concerned that Orr was reading OII Australia’s information on intersex in bad faith. Orr criticizes them for discursively distancing intersex from disability. Bnuuy points out that OII Australia is not writing for an academic (disability studies) scholarship. This is an advocacy organization speaking to a general audience that understands disability through the medical model. Bnuuy read the quotes from OII Australia as them just distancing themselves from a medicalized understanding of disability.
Elza brought up that Orr’s manufactured controversy of “perisex” may have a classist element. While endo- does make sense as an antonym to inter- if one has formal science background, the term peri- is not conventionally an antonym to inter-. Elza has personally noticed a resistance from zer fellow academics to perisex on the grounds that it’s “using scientific terminology incorrectly”, and thinks that’s a classist take.
Michelle brought up that “it also didn't sit great with me that they [Orr] were very condescending about Tumblr like, ‘aww, look at the baby activists trying to do a scholarship," whereas what I'd describe as ‘folk scholarship’ on Tumblr has been very valuable to me. It's not always correct and there can be misinformation, but it has worth.” Remy was unimpressed with how limited/selective Orr’s engagement seemed to be with intersex Tumblr, as well as Orr’s centrist take on “the future is female”.
Closing thoughts
This was a deeply imperfect piece of scholarship. Orr came across as disconnected from the intersex community, and uninterested in working with the community. The work still has some merits: Orr’s first chapter provides an incisive discussion of how ableism is detrimental to intersex advocacy and that trying to distance intersex from disability only adds to societal ableism. Ableism is a serious force in intersex discrimination and we’re stronger off understanding this and explicitly resisting it.
We hope that the stink of Orr’s voyeurism does not sully the important central message of their book. Work needs to be done to teach more intersex people about disability studies. Disability does not mean disorder. Disability does NOT mean medical problem. The disability rights and justice movements are FULL of disabled groups who, just like the intersex community, are actively seeking de-pathologization, bodily autonomy, patient-led care by respectful and well-informed physicians, and fighting neo-eugenics. We are in good company with groups like the Deaf, neurodiversity, and little people communities.
The philosophy of standpoint, often referred to as standpoint theory, is a framework used primarily in feminist and critical theory to explore how knowledge and experience are shaped by social positions and power dynamics. It asserts that individuals' perspectives are influenced by their social and political contexts, particularly their positions within systems of power and oppression. Standpoint theory argues that marginalized or oppressed groups can offer unique and more accurate insights into social realities because their perspectives are shaped by experiences that are often overlooked or devalued by dominant groups.
Key Concepts:
Situated Knowledge: Standpoint theory posits that all knowledge is situated, meaning it is rooted in specific social contexts and power structures. This challenges the notion of objective, universal knowledge that is detached from the knower’s social identity.
Epistemic Privilege: A key idea in standpoint theory is that marginalized groups, because of their lived experiences of oppression, have an epistemic advantage in understanding certain aspects of social reality. For example, women might have a clearer understanding of gender relations than men because they experience gender-based oppression directly.
Standpoint as an Achievement: A standpoint is not simply given by one's social position but must be actively achieved through reflection, consciousness-raising, and collective struggle. This process involves critically examining and interpreting one's experiences within the broader social and political context.
Power and Knowledge: Standpoint theory emphasizes the relationship between power and knowledge production. It argues that dominant groups often shape what is considered legitimate knowledge, thereby marginalizing alternative perspectives that challenge the status quo.
Intersectionality: The philosophy of standpoint often intersects with intersectional theory, which recognizes that people experience oppression and privilege in multiple, overlapping ways (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality). Thus, standpoint theory takes into account the complexity of identity and how it influences one's perspective.
The philosophy of standpoint challenges traditional notions of objectivity and universal knowledge by asserting that our social positions deeply influence how we perceive and understand the world. By recognizing and valuing the perspectives of marginalized groups, standpoint theory seeks to expose and address systemic inequalities in knowledge production and societal structures. It invites a more inclusive and reflective approach to understanding social reality, where diverse voices are heard and respected.
"'Fact' is not anybody’s experience; it states the experience of no one in particular. When the police detective says, “Just the facts please, ma’am,” he is asking, What would I have seen—what would anyone have seen, what would no one in particular have seen—at the scene of the crime?
By definition, then, if we take the empirical rule (no personal authority) seriously, revelation cannot be the basis for fact, because it is not publicly available. Similarly, attempts to claim a special kind of experience or checking for any particular person or kind of person—male or female, black or white, tall or short—are strictly illicit.
After a woman was raped by a gang of teenagers in New York City, the Reverend Al Sharpton said that there was no proof that a rape had occurred, because the victim was being attended by white doctors. In other words, white checkers’ findings do not count. That is illicit; if you make different rules for black and white checkers, you are not doing science.
Paranormalists who claim to have verified psychic phenomena often rely upon single experiments; later, when some other investigator fails to find the claimed effect, they reply (for instance) that the necessary psychic energy was blocked by the presence of a skeptic. That also is illicit; if the way you are checking works only for people with a sympathetic attitude, or if your results are not replicable by others in a reasonably regular fashion, you are not doing science.
The same applies to Christian Scientists and others who believe in faith healing but say that attempts to check it work only for the faithful. Believers in miracles argue that miraculous events can be witnessed and understood properly only by those to whom God chooses to reveal himself. That also is illicit. If the way you are seeing and explaining works only for the religious, you are breaking the rules."
-- Jonathan Rauch, "Kindly Inquisitors"
Rejecting divine revelation but not standpoint epistemology (or vice versa), makes you inconsistent.
“When Black Women define ourselves, we clearly reject the assumption that those in positions granting them the authority to interpret our reality are entitled to do so. Regardless of the actual content of Black women’s self- definitions, the act of insisting on Black female self-definition validates Black women’s power as human subjects.”
How do you think that "your existence as white" is worth mentioning as a trigger ( it's bs in general but still... ) If I am triggered by black people, am I racist? If no, isn't it racism that you aren't racist thinking that? As a 36 years old feminist, I hope you will not block me for this opinion...
HAHAH do you actually believe that everything I tag is a trigger warning or something??? No no no pumpkin, trigger warnings end with “tw” and I use tags for much more than TWs. Isn’t that obvious?!? I thought that was pretty obvious...
Also, given that you are now in on my ‘deep deep code’, I’m sure you can figure out that I don’t tag “i’m white” as a trigger warning at all. It’s ACTUALLY about clarifying my standpoint, for which I also tag “i’m agnostic”, “i’m not jewish”, “i’m canadian”, etc etc (basically whenever it’s necessary given the content of the post). I have written more about this too so if you honestly give a shit, read on. TBH though, I don’t care what you do with your “opinion”.
And FTR I’m still gonna block you. AT BEST you’re a “White Feminist” and at worst you’re an anti-sj-type and just I don’t need your aggressively ill-informed ass in my face doing poor mental gymnastics trying to be “right” instead of actually doing the work of being a good human being.
The following was sent to me through private message.:
I wanted to reach out privately and earnestly to let you know something that (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) you probably didn't know.
Advocating for the abolition of ALL religion is cultural genocide.
Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions will be eradicated, taking important cornerstones of people's culture with them.
Most of these people are disenfranchised (at least in the west anyway) and advocating for their culture to be wiped out is both harmful and dare I say a very insidious kind of bigotry.
I don't blame you if you didn't know but I wanted to tell you so that, well, you would know. What you choose to do with that information is up to you but seriously consider whether who you WANT to hurt is worth hurting thousands of people you might not even have been thinking of.
Anyway, thanks for reading all this and please consider focusing on more constructive efforts, like advocating against cults and proseletyzing.
Have a good day, whenever it is that you see this.
As there is far too much to address in e mere private chat (this is one of the longest posts I've ever written), I said I would address it in a full post and gave her the option of how I would convey her original question:
Quote the whole thing, including her name.
Quote the whole thing, but removing her name.
Summarize as faithfully as possible the issue, but in my own words and understanding.
I also answered that in short, the answer is no.
The response was that she didn't want this taken public, followed by:
And it IS cultural genocide. Judging by your blog, you either grew up or still are culturally Christian so it isn't really your place to tell religious minorities or disenfranchised people how to handle our own disenfranchisement.
Basically, that I'm not allowed to have an opinion or better information. Or less racist ideas. Based, as usual, on stereotypes (don't worry, we'll get there). She assumed my identity categories in order to justify ignoring me. This is Standpoint Epistemology.
Standpoint theory combined with intersectionality, taken to the extreme (as is currently being done), is the codification of the ad hominem fallacy into an epistemology. It no longer matters what is said; it matters who said it.
They will assume your categories and decide "your place" (their word) for you. And you must stay in the lane they have prescribed for you, and adhere to their higher awareness, or you're a blasphemer and heretic. You must not burst their confirmation bubble. You must adhere to the narrow path. You must not offer an "outside" (by their judgement) perspective to counterbalance groupthink.
(also known as: appeal to bias, appeal to motive, appeal to personal interest, argument from motives, conflict of interest, faulty motives, naïve cynicism, questioning motives, vested interest)
Description: Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid.
She then proceeded to block me.
Except, that's not how this actually works, no matter how shrill the protestations. And how racist the assumptions are.
So, I have decided to make the choice for her (#2), and proceed to point out how ignorant and also racist this entire mess of nonsense is.
Whether or not she wanted this public, I can certainly write up my own post on this topic. While I will generally try to honor the wishes of those I talk to - e.g. anonymity for ex-Muslims who are in physical danger - I am not beholden to such demands, least of all from people who insist I must only talk about a particular topic in private, and cannot write anything publicly on the subject. (This is not unlike the current campaign against curriculum transparency, opposing the idea that you should be able to see what people are up to.)
Strap in, this is lengthy, which is why I wasn't prepared to do it in private chat.
Let's begin.
==
In your opening, you indicated that you wanted to reach out "earnestly." The follow-up would suggest otherwise, that this was not for discussion, but for immediate action and compliance. The postmodernist equivalent of being told to accept Jesus Christ or burn in hellfire.
Yeah, I don't do that. You clearly don't know anything about me.
Confirmed.
So, in the interests of that earnestness and sincerity, I suggest we cut to the chase and name up front what we're talking about. Let's be clear, this is very specific terminology that doesn't just come from nowhere.
A person doesn't just come up with such histrionic ideas and hyperbolic language out of thin air, from her own contemplations. As we've already seen based on your complete, unrepentant adherence to the Ad Hominem fallacy through Standpoint, this is postmodern Critical Theory activism being parroted. It's textbook. Literally. There are no new or independent ideas here, just the vacuous, empty echo of a drone repeating its programming.
So, just so that we're clear, yes, I see you.
But what actually gave it away is the phrase "cultural genocide". Because this is what we're actually referring to.
To normal, sane humans this looks, well, insane. While activists will try to gaslight you into accepting that this is a more enlightened, greater understanding - as the private messager did - it truly is deranged and unhinged from reality.
So, let me explain. Critical Social Justice does not deal with individuals or with universal humanity. Indeed, it actually explicitly rejects it.
"Many of these movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The logic of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow."
-- Sensoy/DiAngelo, "Is Everyone Really Equal?"
Only categories matter, since CSJ views society as stratified by categories, and individuals are simply puppets in this structure (i.e. literally a conspiracy theory).
And this includes Ability/Disability as an identity characteristic. That is, they think people do and should consider their (dis)ability as a core element of their identity.
This is the exact opposite of the "I am not my disability" that is the counterpart of the Liberal mainstay of color-blindness: I am not defined by my skin color. I am not defined by my disability. You may observe and note them, but I am not defined by them, and I don't want you to deal with me through those aspects.
This is actually the foundational premise of Critical Disability Studies. Also not a joke. This is a real - in the sense that it exists, not in the sense it's legitimate - pseudo-discipline in the Theoretical Humanities.
(So is Critical Animal Studies, by the way, which asks why we grant humans rights and privileges that we don't grant to other non-human animals, and encourages us to rid ourselves of the language of oppression we use when referring to our pets. Such as the word "owner". Not a joke.)
So, when you consider that people are born deaf or may become deaf through some kind of condition or accident, CSJ theology regards that as an identity category, rather than simply a medical condition.
It is actually opposed to medical treatments that would restore or grant hearing, because it would erase that identity group. Nobody would die, but nobody would identity with this medical condition any more.
(They won't have any qualms about transitioning a four year old, though.)
This is what CSJ activists mean by "cultural genocide." They mean that "deaf culture," whatever that means, will be systematically exterminated by powerful groups to enforce "normativity", akin to how the Nazis exterminated Jews. They're not joking.
Make no mistake, cultural genocide exists, such as the Uyghurs. People can, and have, invaded and sought the decimation of entire people.
But, while activists are desperately trying to pretend they're equivalent, they're not. And it's testament to this ideology's disconnect from reality that they would work so hard to pretend so, and how they would throw people's wellbeing under the bus of their theology's virtue.
Nobody dies by finding technologies and medical procedures to grant people hearing, or prevent deafness occurring in the first place.
Nobody dies by people discarding superstitious beliefs and changing their culture to be aligned with reality and non-theistic values, which is what we mean by embracing the ongoing decline of religion.
All that happens is that an identity label disappears. Because nobody needs it any more.
This bizarre mentality isn't just reserved for deafness, it's pervasive across Disability Studies, including curing blindness, restoring limbs, treating mental illness, and for some bizarre reason, autism. That is, it's "cultural genocide" to treat "schizophrenia culture" or to support research into eliminating autism. It's typical for people with this kind of activism to adopt the mental health identities, as they're self-identified and invisible; my interlocutor had self-diagnosed and self-identifeid as "autistic." In her bio, of course.
It's also pervasive across the anti-science of Fat Studies, which views "the effort to eradicate fat people via weight loss as a form of genocide perpetrated by the medical profession" (direct quote from the doctrine).
"More recently we've seen the rise of Critical Studies of Ableism and Fat Studies. These draw to a great extent on Queer Theory.
They ask themselves why we think it is better for body parts to work and for people not to be morbidly obese.
They answer themselves that it's because science, that false authority that seeks to police and oppress people, has declared it to be so due to an underlying hatred of disabled and fat people.
They advocate a different form of knowledge. One that relies on the lived experience of disabled and fat people.
Unless they prefer not to be disabled or fat, in which case they've internalized this medicalized oppression, and they need to be reprimanded and ignored."
-- Helen Pluckrose, "The Rise and Whys of Grievance Studies"
(BTW, this is the reason that there was precious little talk about the significant risk factor obesity plays in survival of COVID. Activists will say "hey, this slim person died too" - not knowing what "risk factor" means - "so this is just medicalized bigotry.")
It's like getting upset when Ford discontinued all cars in favor of SUVs, and calling it "vehicular genocide." No one actually dies, and no production capacity is actually reduced, but nothing will roll off the assembly line with the badge "Taurus" ever again. Just like how people discarding Islam will mean that their children will be born, but won't call themselves "Muslim" any more.
What this is really bemoaning is the end of a label. Because that's what this ideology cares about. Ones that it fetishizes, while ignoring the ones it doesn't. Like Xianity. You'll see no such alarmist language over the decline of Xianity.
Why this is the case is itself worth a look, because it's just as deranged as the resulting wails of "cUlTuRaL gEnOcIdE!1!!"
==
The aforementioned stratified power structure is formalized in the Intersectional Wheel of Power. This Sesame Street-level understanding of society is taught unironically in colleges, and increasingly, in the lower schools by activist teachers sneaking it into their curriculum. It takes everyone and pigeon holes them into stereotyped "oppressor"/power and "oppressed"/"marginalized" classes within each identity category - race, gender, ability, etc.
It cares nothing about the individual or their circumstances. For example, Oprah Winfrey, with her millions of follows and billions of dollars is "oppressed" and "marginalized" as a black woman.
To disagree with this higher wisdom means you have "fragility," or "internalized oppression."
While "religion" does not appear on the above linked copy of the Wheel, I've seen some that do. And Xianity is an "oppressor" class in this domain, with... what was it?
Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions
Ah yes, that... as the "oppressed" class. It doesn't matter to the activist that Hinduism has 1.2 billion adherents, or that Hindutva fundamentalists are seizing control of segments of India. It doesn't matter that Islam is dominant in many countries, to the point of making it illegal to not be a Muslim in some. It doesn't matter that there are 1.9 billion Muslims. Because Xianity has been the most prevalent in the USA and many western countries, and Islam much less so, this means "Muslim" is an oppressed identity, while "Xian" is a privileged, oppressor identity.
Notice how parochial and juvenile this proposition is, though. This is all about the limited, childish view of academics in privileged positions in higher education in first world countries. It's a completely US-centric view, ironically colonized to other countries.
But it's why people critical of Islam, and particularly ex-Muslims, are routinely accused of "Islamophobia". The fact that someone can simply think their way out of a (purported) "oppressed" class just blows their tiny minds. Because in the Clown World of Intersectionality, opposing Islam is opposing a marginalized, oppressed group. Even where it's dominant.
This is also why it's okay to whine about the "oppression" of women in first world secular countries, where their rights are enshrined in law and their voices hugely influential, but where Xianity is prevalent. But you must not mention that women are routinely arrested for removing hijab or being unaccompanied, gay people are routinely executed, and blasphemers routinely sentenced to death.
The only thing surprising to me about this person's unhinged "genocide" claim is that it included Judaism, as Jews are traditionally given "white privilege" by Intersectionalists.
"Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into the white race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by joining labor unions, by swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and by acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground activity. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable, it is shifting and malleable."
-- Delgado/Stefancic, "Critical Race Theory, An Introduction."
Which is the reason for the recent uptick in antisemitic attacks. Antiracist (i.e. neoracist) and Intersectional activists view Jews as "white allied" and therefore fair game. The Squad is notorious for exactly this.
Ditto the anti-Asian violence. All fuelled by Intersectionality, and unsurprising given the stratification Intersectionality invented and insists is pervasive, the "normal science" of society.
A look at her blog, however, suggests she herself is Jewish, providing the explanation, as self-interest will always win out in the more ambiguous areas.
==
With all of that out of the way, there isn't a whole lot else that needs to be said to rebut this idiocy, where people can't walk away from their religion or it'll hurt the feelings of Intersectional lunatics.
Still, it's worth exploring some of the other fallacious and reality-disconnected thinking.
If you were simply trying to puzzle out the meaning of this bizarre claim, you now have your answer: a label will fade out of use. Nothing more, nothing less. Like "Ford Granada," "Hellenist," "slave owner" or "Führer." If you're happy with that explanation, you can probably scroll on to the next post in your dashboard.
For more on how this mentality meanders, crashes and burns, feel free to Keep Reading after the jump. Be forewarned that it's very long.
Now that we know what "cultural genocide" means in this context, we can reject this entirely and need address nothing further. It's already fallen apart. But let's proceed.
Advocating for the abolition of ALL religion is cultural genocide.
Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions will be eradicated, taking important cornerstones of people's culture with them.
Let's notice the sleight of hand being pulled here. Going from "all religion" in the first line to "people" and "groups" in the second. And even going so far as to attempt this gem of blatant dishonesty.
hurting thousands of people
Religions are just ideas. They're not entitled to exist. We have thousands of abandoned and discarded religions through our history, and nobody need weep for them. We have even more abandoned ideologies and beliefs than full-blown religions.
"People" and "groups" are, well, people.
Not only does this conflate - or misrepresent - religion with culture, worse, it's conflating culture with the people participating in it. That people are their beliefs.
More insidiously, that one can deduce someone's beliefs from their identity categories. That all people in any given category have the same experience and viewpoint, or if they don't, they have "internalized oppression" and are dismissed as not Authentic.
So, let's rephrase this just a little, but not actually all that much.
Advocating for the removal of magical thinking and ancient superstition is cultural genocide.
Abandoning magical thinking and ancient superstition will eradicate Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups (of people) of folk religions and pagan religions, taking away the foundation (magical thinking and ancient superstition) they sit upon.
Read the original and the rephrasing again. How did I do? Does it seem more sane or less sane when clarity is added.
While, as we've already seen, it is true that removal of religion will remove the terminology of "Jew", "Muslim", etc, because those terms will serve little purpose, that's like complaining that if we get rid of Nazism, we won't be able to call people "Nazis" any more. I doubt Intersectional activists know, let alone worry, what a Zoroastrian or Hellenist is, or why there are so few of them.
In any event, it's not phrased that way, is it? It's phrased as if advocating for people to abandon primitive superstitions is the same as calling for them to be hunted down, rounded up and killed. Using the incendiary word "genocide," after all, not to mention "hurting thousands of people."
But people abandoning religions doesn't involve anyone dying or being hurt. Non-belief has steadily grown in countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia and many others without a single death. Except, you know, when the fundie relatives "honor kill" the apostate. But that's probably their "culture."
Sure, people's feelings might be hurt.
"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.'
In this country, I've been told, 'That's offensive' as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment.
Not to me they don't."
-- Christopher Hitchens
But, so what? It's trivially easy to manufacture offence from nothing. Anyone can claim offence, real or imagined. People's feelings are their problem. The person who messaged me doesn't seem to give a shit about my feelings while lecturing me, so clearly this doesn't really bother her.
"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that" - as if it gives them certain rights.
It's no more than a whine. "I find that offensive. " It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.
"I'm offended by that."
Well, so fucking what?
-- Stephen Fry
Or is it that she only cares about certain people's feelings? Like any garden variety bigot?
People can simply change their minds. And they don't need arrogant ivory-tower ideologues to gatekeep whether they do so. One of the best ways to actually destroy a culture is to gatekeep it, because people will simply stop participating. People don't need to be made to feel guilty by shallow, racist activists invested in sustaining the romantic stereotypes they've built up in their minds.
Because that's what this ideology runs on: cliches and stereotypes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
A noble savage is a literary stock character who embodies the concept of the indigene, outsider, wild human, an "other" who has not been "corrupted" by civilization, and therefore symbolizes humanity's innate goodness.
The noble savage is exotic, unfamiliar, has a mystique, glamor and romanticism compared with the boring predictability of the familiar. The grass is always greener. "Hijab is empowering!"
What's not stated outright in this fetish, but is made clear in the assertion of "cultural genocide" is that cultures other than liberal, western society are sufficiently dependent upon superstition and magical thinking for their "other ways of knowing" that if you take those away, there is nothing left of them.
While western societies are stuck scrutinizing the minutiae of mathematic calculationa and fussing about with testing evidence, non-western societies are engaged in broad, romantic storytelling of sweeping tales that tell of an imaginary origin, and which they hold dear. Even if they're not true. To take that away is to destroy them, because they have nothing else. Science, evidence and reason are "white, western" ways of knowing.
Except that non-Western societies haven't collapsed as they've already been discarding superstition and magical thinking, and are continuing to do so.
(On the other hand, Western civilization itself might collapse if the postmodern form of superstition of numinous forces, magical thinking about language, and anti-science, anti-objectivity social constructivism continues to infect it.)
This ideology doesn't actually think very highly of other cultures. It regards them as primitive and credulous, and its members practically another species. That they don't have the same wishes and desires. It just regards that as a good thing. A good thing for them to be immune to science. A good thing to put myth and storytelling above objective reality. It just wants to appear more morally righteous about "diverse" and "inclusive" and "tolerant" it is about looking down on them.
Because this ideology is founded on stereotypes and cliches. Where we had spent decades abandoning stereotypes of all types, this ideology recapitulates them as virtues. It is thus extremely racist, sexist, bigoted and, ironically, colonialist. See: Anti-colonial Diktat.
==
Let's take a moment though, because we've been talking about "culture" but we need to consider what we mean by that.
Culture is something you participate in, it's something that you do, it's what surrounds you, it's your way of life.
Culture is not a biological or inherent property of anything or anyone. It is what people do and the way they do it. And that is completely independent of any inherited, biological trait.
I know two people from different parts of Africa. Both were born, raised and grew up in Africa. They even completed mandatory military service. Both are white. Both are more culturally "African" (ignoring for a moment that "Africa" is not a monolith or single culture) than Oprah Winfrey or Kanye West, who are black Americans; both Oprah and Kanye are culturally American, not African.
There are some particularly troubling inevitable conclusions/side effects of this culture vs ethnicity train of thought. Because it positions someone like Oprah as being not- or less-American, as being outside of American culture, by associating her with being African. She's not. She's culturally American. Her ethnicity and biological ancestry trace back to Africa, but she herself is culturally American.
Because culture does not travel down ethnic or biological lines. It's worth noting here that the average black American has between 16-24% European ancestry, and about 5% native American ancestry.
Since it's something you participate in, culture changes all the time, because what people do and how they do it changes. It's not a defined box of someone's personal preconceptions that must be protected at all costs. When people discard a tradition, it's not for you to decide that they shouldn't, or that it ruins their culture, or that their culture has been destroyed by not complying with your expectations.
And to top it off, basically 80 percent of japanese customs, traditions, and food, came from other countries. Japanese is an integration of different cultures, like america. Japan takes influences from places like korea, china, russia, and europe. If japan stuck to itself, there would be no tempura, japanese tea, tea ceremonies, kabuki, japanese bread, japanese curry, j- pop, anime, cars, or modern fishing techniques.
Not only do these change over time, but one of the key points about culture is that it's shared and adopts parts of other cultures it encounters. Cultures mash together, they split apart, they change and evolve.
That's what humanity does. It stops living in isolated boxes and thinking it got everything right the first time, and instead interacts and learns from each other.
People like this clearly sheltered activist should try it some time.
And religion itself is not "culture." An American Xian and an American atheist will have far more in common culturally than an American Xian and a Zambian Xian. Religion is only one part of any given culture, and yes, that includes Islam and Judaism and other religions. Those religions are not practiced the same everywhere in the world, and to think so would be incredibly ignorant.
The Arabs existed as Arabs long before Islam came along and conquered them 1400 years ago. The Canaanites existed before Judaism arose. Indonesia was a country with people in it long before it became infested with Islam. Ditto Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran.
Remember Egypt? Remember Egyptian culture? Existed long before Islam came along and imposed its dogma onto the country.
Consider Islam itself. Moderate, "religion of peace" Islam is an invention of the last 100 years. Its purported inclusiveness and congeniality is a modern, Western fabrication. As any recognized Islamic tafsir (exegesis/commentary/analysis, e.g. Ibn Kathir) will confirm, traditional Islam looks far more like the Taliban than the "religion of peace" hijabi with a tattoo showing in the small of her back above the waist of her low-rise jeans.
Is it "cultural genocide" if Islam moderates and becomes less fundamentalist as many Muslims are trying to achieve, as Xianity underwent reform? Are you suggesting that it's unreasonable for Islam to change, and that it should remain in its original war-like state? If you're concerned about "cultural genocide," shouldn't you want Islam to remain in its purest, most untainted, most fundamentalist original state? Rather than adopting values and ideas from Western cultures?
And no, that's not a misconception.
Islam has also only existed for the last 1400 years. When it arose, it stole "borrowed" from Xianity and Judaism. It plagiarized the previous mythology (compare Sura 5.32 with Sanhedrin 37a) and claimed to be the "true" version of the word of the Abrahamic god. Does it trouble you that the spread of Islam wiped out the Quraysh? Both the people and the culture? How do you decide which cultures to get upset about and which ones to let die out without any concern?
Women being trapped in black body bags might be - nay, is - completely Islamic, but it's not Afghan culture, Somali culture or Indonesian culture. Those still exist, buried and half-remembered under the Islamic bullshit.
If you want to talk "cultural genocide," let's talk about the obliteration of many cultural traditions at the point of an Islamic sword. About how distinct, rich cultures are now haunted by interchangeable Dementors, who only exist and never get to live.
Given all of this, labelling the decline of religion "cultural genocide" is one of the single stupidest things I've ever heard.
People are not their beliefs. They are not their traditions.
==
Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions will be eradicated, taking important cornerstones of people's culture with them.
Cornerstones will be removed? Good. Build new cornerstones. Better ones. Ones built on reality. Ones built on truth. Ones built on humanity rather than power and control justified by magic, divine revelation and the god of the gaps.
This mentality seem to convey the misconception that religions and cultures don't already do this anyway.
Islam consistently tries to pretend that the quran doesn't say that the Earth is flat. Judaism has already abandoned the notion that the Exodus is literally true.
Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories were written centuries after the apparent setting of the stories.
So, what's going on here then? "Cultural suicide"? People aren't allowed to change their own cultures? They're only allowed to make them more superstitious, more magically thinking, rather than less? They're to be denied access to such resources as scientific archaeology, and instead remain under traditional, ancient misconceptions?
Appeal to Tradition
argumentum ad antiquitatem
(also known as: appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity, appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from tradition, appeal to past practice, traditional wisdom)
Description: Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct. Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.
Religions didn't get into place by being true, or by reasoning themselves into their positions of influence. It was wrong for them to seize that influence and control in the first place. That they've had it for a long time is not a reason to perpetuate it.
Eliminating religion has literally nothing to do with eliminating people. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with everything else about their culture that is not religious.
Over 100 infant boys die each year of circumscision-related causes. That's 1.3% of all male neonatal deaths. One day, Jews may finally abandon the superstition that they should cut off a chunk of their baby boy's penis in order to garner the favor of a god who stars in a book they wrote declaring themselves to be that same god's Chosen People. One day, Muslims may abandon the same to comply with the demands of their prophet's sock-puppet god.
Innumerable children would be saved, by abandoning these primitive superstitions. Not to mention the lives of their potential offspring (that was me doing a cute callback to 5.32/Sanhedrin 37a).
Imagine for a moment that all these superstitious, religious traditions start to fall away. People abandon them, as they've abandoned stoning non-virgin girls to death (well, excluding Islam, of course), and justifying slavery with religious doctrine (again, excluding Islam, of course).
So, who has actually been exterminated by abandoning these myths? Uh, nobody. What has been lost? Belief in a magical man in the sky who was never there in the first place, and people praying to him instead of solving their problems, and devoting their lives to something that isn't true.
And an identity label. But, of course, this is the most important thing of all to the Intersectionalist.
What culture has been lost? Evidence-free - and false - superstitious delusion. What happens to Jewish culture now? It adapts using human traditions, including the history of magical myths and delusions, but without the continuation or declaration of them being true.
As their children - well, the ones who survive - become less and less religious, what exactly has been genocided? Why not evolve what could - admittedly, uncharitably - be regarded as an absurd weekly Friday-night seance, conducted over scriptural events that never happened, and turn it into a cultural tradition of gathering as a family once a week to Chromecast photos. What's wrong with a cultural tradition that no longer includes the threat of some ghastly overlord who will rebuke them for serving ham?
This type of person really doesn't seem to understand that culture and traditions are not people. That it's the people who determine and make the culture, not the other way around. This really seems to be how little they understand culture.
Many of the members of these religions are themselves trying to reshape the religions. While Western feminists are prancing about playing dress-ups in hijab, women are getting arrested in Iran for removing the hijab because they want the same privileges that the feminists take for granted.
And yet, activists lecture us about preservation of "culture." There are people literally dying to reshape their own culture to gain access to the privileges they spit on.
Muslim Reformist to Sally Kohn: Stop Working Against Us
it is not "genocide" when the people decide not to do it any more. Even when triggered activists don't like it and somehow conjure offence out of asserting the cultural agency that they would prefer to deny them.
Using absurd, alarmist language - and the fallacy of Argument by Repetition - doesn't change that.
(also known as: argument from nagging, proof by assertion)
Description: Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence.
Simply insisting over and over that it's "cultural genocide" doesn't make it true. It might be "true" by the tortured, contrived jargon that some ivory tower academic has invented for political means. But that doesn't make it legitimate complaint.
As the second message indicates, this person didn't really have anything else to offer. She just repeated her assertion and expected - nay, demand - it to go unchallenged. I am neither stupid nor gullible.
I mean, really, I didn't have to go to all this trouble of writing all this up. She offered literally nothing, so I could really simply ignore her.
But this is more fun, so here we are.
So for someone to insist that culture can be exterminated by the decline of religion is just a roundabout way of saying that they don't have any idea what culture actually is.
==
Most of these people are disenfranchised (at least in the west anyway) and advocating for their culture to be wiped out is both harmful and dare I say a very insidious kind of bigotry.
Except that people actually travel to the west, don't they, in order to seek and participate in the benefits of such a society. To find and obtain enfranchisement. This is playing pretend like they're trapped and imprisoned in western societies, at the mercy of some repressive regime.
deprive (someone) of the right to vote: the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification.
• (as adjective disenfranchised) deprived of power; marginalized: a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don't feel connected to the school.
• deprive (someone) of a right or privilege: a measure that would disenfranchise people from access to legal advice.
• archaic deprive (someone) of the rights and privileges of a free inhabitant of a borough, city, or country.
Nobody in a western country is "disenfranchised." Liberal, secular societies are notoriously neutral in their applications of rights and privileges, including voting. As long as you're a citizen, which is not an unreasonable requirement.
What's amusing is that activists like this will wail about disenfranchisement or marginalization on the one hand, and also rail against "The Wall" on the other. Look at the way she phrased it:
disenfranchised (at least in the west anyway)
This means certainly disenfranchised in the west, and maybe, but maybe not, disenfranchised elsewhere. That things will be worse in a western country with liberal, secular values.
Surely if this is the case, one should really be in favor of "The Wall" to prevent immigrants from wasting their time in a country where they'll be worse off? I wonder whether the people who risked their lives, or abandoned everything they knew to make the journey, to find new opportunities, who now drive this activist's Ubers and tend the grounds to her college think the same way? What a luxury belief to hold.
In regards to "power," there are people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was elected to Dutch parliament, you have the proudly unrepentant antisemite, Ilhan Omar, among many others. Nobody is preventing anyone from accessing all levels, all opportunities within society, if they wish to, or have the capability.
You know where people are disenfranchised? India. Where there are castes and untouchables. In Iran, where women are denied rights and privileges on religious grounds. In Saudi Arabia where an actual patriarchy exists, and women are subject to guardianship laws. Who else is disenfranchised? Women in Pakistan, gay people in Iran, the Uyghurs in China.
But wait a minute. The word "power" doesn't mean that in a postmodern sense, does it? It's more vague, and refers to the idea of one's practices being the cultural norms. That is, that groups are "disenfranchised" simply by virtue of being in a relative minority.
That's literally all it means. It doesn't matter what those people actually think or what they actually experience. It doesn't matter that people want to be in countries where these norms exist, because they value them too, the ideology defines this "problem" into existence.
"I read Alexis de Tocqueville, and I read about democracy, and I lived in countries that have no democracy, that have no founding fathers… so I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom."
-- Ayaan Hirsi Ali
The postmodern conception of being "disenfranchised" is the trivial fact of being held to the same standards and expectations as everyone else in the country in which they choose to reside - and in many cases, risk their lives to emigrate to.
This absurd, postmodern ideology is based on identity groups, and it finds it unreasonable for cultural relativism (I refer you once again to Yasmine above) to not be applied, no matter what the outcome. Because noble savage. Because different species. Because there's no universal humanity, only categories and boxes and lenses and identity groups and positionality.
What it calls for, and this isn't even a secret, is segregation. We're seeing exactly this in schools. Because with people divided into superficially homogenous groups (ala "affinity groups"), there are no "minorities." The "norms" of the group are perceived to be all the same. Which is to say, this ideology is racist, sexist and full of every other bigotry ever invented, because it assumes everyone with the same superficial group markers has the same values. It values only diversity of these superficial attributes, not diversity of ideas.
What's actually bigotry is cultural relativism. Holding one culture to a lower standard than another. The bigotry of low expectations. Expecting and accepting lower or different standards because of the belief that they're not capable of it and cannot achieve it.
Such as the notion that it's unreasonable to expect immigrants to Sweden to not rape.
Even when people come to liberal, secular countries to embrace the freedom and opportunity and marketplace of ideas, the adherents of this idiotic and racist ideology want to keep those immigrants in their box, to maintain the "purity" of the culture. Even when the people don't want it. Even when they want to live a pluralistic life, where they are both an Indian and a Canadian. Nigerian and a Brit. Somali and Dutch. Jewish and American.
No, it's not "cultural genocide" for cultures to change and adapt. Every culture that has survived, has survived because it does so has throughout time, and continues to do so, despite the protestations of activists.
==
So, if by "cultural genocide" you mean that people will actually die, then I call you a histrionic liar.
If by "cultural genocide" you mean that humans put old ideas out to pasture and discard them, like they've discarded Ford sedans, then I say, sweet. An excellent synonym is "idea expiration." We've discarded lots of bad ideas.
So, I say bring it on.
==
I don't blame you if you didn't know but I wanted to tell you so that, well, you would know. What you choose to do with that information is up to you but seriously consider whether who you WANT to hurt is worth hurting thousands of people you might not even have been thinking of.
I will continue to do exactly as I always have been. And not merely because nothing you've said actually holds up when examined.
I advocate for rationality, reason, evidence and logic over superstition, purported divine revelation (as told only by humans) and magical thinking, just as I advocate for science, evidence and reason over pseudoscience, woo, anti-science, anti-vax, denial of reality and ignorant bullshit.
But i'm not the racist bigot you are, applying this inconsistently and selectively, and reserving criticism only for preferred political targets.
I support the ongoing erosion of Xianity and Islam and Judaism and every other superstitious belief. All of them.
For the exact reason of humanity. Because humans cannot reliably navigate this world without an accurate and objective understanding of it.
We know through long painful history, that ignorance or denial of objective reality has actual genocidal consequences. The Russian Famine brought on by Lysenkoism, the Black Plague, the devastation in China during the Cultural Revolution, and even the unnecessary deaths due to COVID are all testament to our need to discard superstition and ignorant beliefs so that we can accurately deal with a world that doesn't give a shit what we believe or prefer.
Your insistence that we must not disrupt this reality-denial out of some misplaced sensitivity is something I unequivocally reject and oppose. Your priorities are fucked up, sweetie.
Flat Earth is no more true than Islam, and I reject both on the same grounds. Will it bother you if Flat Earth culture disappears?
Or do you only care about culture associated with brown people? What about the preservation of Cosby fan culture, or R. Kelly fan culture?
Anyway, thanks for reading all this and please consider focusing on more constructive efforts, like advocating against cults and proseletyzing.
Oh, don't worry, I am. I'm advocating against the cult you've joined. Because your belief system itself functions the same way as a cult. I am, after all, a heretic, a blasphemer. People who disagree with you and do not comply are burned as witches (online mob).
The entire point of you messaging me was to proselytize your born again faith to me and tell me to accept your beliefs and seek salvation. Beliefs that are as unfalsifiable as any god. Beliefs that are performative and allow you to be as hateful as you like as "divine" virtue. Beliefs that are held with faith, not reason or evidence. Beliefs that are based on insular circular scripture that refers to nothing but itself. Beliefs that created the vulnerability that they purport to solve.
You are a religionist. You have every hallmark.
==
One striking thing that stands out about this is the sheer paternalism and audacity to speak on behalf of Jewish, Muslim and a long string of other religions, as if you represent all of them. You do not. You speak only for yourself. One person.
While also remaining silent on the decline of Xianity, other than to frame it as an accusation leveled at me.
And this is where the unrepentant sociopathy of this ideology comes into play.
Protect Judaism and Islam from "cultural genocide", but let Xianity slide into oblivion without protestation. Because reasons. Because hegemony power normative marginalized structural discursive intersectional genocide hegemony. Yes, I know the language. The empty, empty word salad, obscuring the empty, empty claims. The juvenile, parochial view of someone with the first world privilege to be able to waste their education studying vanity courses about luxury beliefs.
"Hate" is bad and wrong... except when it comes to hating the "right" people; particular people from particular groups or categories, because then it's a virtue. Because then we can pretend it's not really hate. Because they deserve it. Because they're the Bad™ people. Because we're on the "right side of history."
Because our bigotry to them isn't the same as their bigotry to us, because they're different. Because our bigotry is justified. They're not capable of the same range of emotions or understanding. Being vilified doesn't impact them the same way it impacts us.
'Except for the fact that boys don't experience "some form of sexual abuse" ever, and all apparent "cases" of male sexual abuse are always from people who lack any understanding of the definition of such terms.
Sexual abuse involves mental trauma, males do not experience mental trauma as they are incapable of doing so, similar to how males cannot experience emotions such as remorse and generosity and therefore the term sexual abuse does not apply to men, there should be another term that does apply to men but I have been unable to locate such a term.'
“Whiteness is not humxness,” the statement begins. “infact, white skin is sub-humxn.” The post goes on to present a genetics-based argument centred on melanin and enzyme.
“White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual,” the post reads towards the end. “white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”
What you're actually looking for is special treatment. You're okay with Xianity being attacked and would likely be thrilled for it to collapse and fade away entirely, as the statistics currently suggest it will, long term. The "cultural genocide" of Xianity is acceptable, even to be applauded. Because Xianity isn't like all the others. The others are cornerstones of fetishized groups, while Xianity is a (supposed) cornerstone of a disfavored group: western society.
Cheering the removal of the cornerstones of hated groups is a virtue. Consistently advocating for the removal of superstitious, primitive and false cornerstones of all groups - and doing so consistently, as I do - is like literal genocide or someshit.
And I don't think you'd even disagree with this, which is worrying. Because it's this exact mentality that proposed Proposition 16 in California, to re-legalize discrimination based on race, gender, etc, as a virtuous endeavor. Treating people differently to construct preferred outcomes based on identity groups, and denying qualified, merit-based promotions and admissions.
But this ideology is so invested in this fetish, this hypocrisy, this double-standard, this discrimination, this bigotry that you've adopted as core to your identity, that you're willing to discard real human people into the abyss of toxic, destructive, and false religious beliefs. As "culture" that must be protected from the intrusion of reality.
This ideology is one of the most dehumanizing, hateful I've ever encountered.
==
The problem here isn't me. The problem here is that you put ideas, myths and beliefs above people. Oh, you talk a big game about "groups", but what you're referring to is the categories, not the individuals.
And this is the great tragedy and destructiveness of the woke theology It both denies the universal (e.g. common humanity, one single race), and the individual, and instead fixates entirely on categories and identity groups based solely on stereotypes and cliches, about what it means to be that type of person. This isn't a bug, it's a feature.
As usual, this broken, deranged ideology goes in exactly the wrong, anti-human direction, especially when it uses its authoritarian nature to lecture to others how they should feel and what is an "authentic" way to feel or be a particular category of person. It divides humanity up into categories and insists on preserving and upholding the boundaries between those categories as a virtue.
Here's the difference between you and me. I believe that people can change their beliefs, that they can discard old, bad ideas, and adopt new, better ideas. That they can evolve their cultures and societies to the benefit of their own and everyone else's humanity. It's how we got where we are today.
You just want to protect ideas rather than people, and make sure everyone acts out the roles you've assign them in your head.
Sweetie, the problem is you've become an authoritarian bigot who has subscribed to a hate-cult. You lost your shit when I simply said no, before I even explained why - you weren't interested in that.
Your beliefs are toxic shit. Your values are completely messed up. It's time to stop using your adopted identity categories as an excuse for your shitty ideas and untreated personality disorders. You can be better than this.
Genocide your bigoted, hateful, sociopathic cult-like beliefs, sweetie.
As epistemologies, “lived experience” and “I feel it in my heart” are equally unreliable, unfalsifiable and useless.
If you’re going to propose a source of knowledge and then deny others access to that source - or describe it as completely inaccessible from the outset - then you’re authorizing everyone else to ignore you.
