Yes ignore the person who lives the reality as opposed to the cis woman with privilege, thank you for highlighting the point :)
That is not what I was saying at all. I was just suggesting another item to read, that attacked the point from a different direction. What you wrote is only a call to action, perhaps I was harsh in saying this, but I clicked on it assuming it would be a critique and it wasn't. And please continue with your ad hominem attacks.
I don't think ad hominem applies. She is accusing you of actions not saying you are wrong because of qualities. I think there is a fallacy in play but its name does not come to my fingers. something about
ascribing intentions to others. This is always a problem in Marxist/Freudian disciplines. In my opinion (as a western-cis-hetero-nearly white-male with an advanced degree) Identity studies should be reworked on a less theory laden paradigm.
I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but I don't see how it cannot be an ad hominen attack. What she says is "you can't not believe what this author is writing because of who she is" which is an ad hominen attack. She did not engage with the author's argument in anyway, and only dismisses it based on who the author is. Which is too bad since I would think, perhaps wrongly, that laurelai would appreciate a book about intersectionality, and how interest organizations constantly try to frame advantaged group issues as being universal, while ignoring disadvantaged group issues.ignore the person who lives the reality as opposed to the cis woman with privilege
I dont need a book written by a privileged white cis woman to tell me about intersectionality because i live the experience every day of my life. Those books are for you people. The people who dont face multiple axes of oppression, honestly what can this book tell me about my life that I dont already know? I dismissed her work and your suggestion like i did because you tried to tell someone who lives on multiple axes of oppression to read a book on multiple axes of oppression, i found it a bit insulting and patronizing. You are more worried about logically constructed arguments than real life pain faced by human beings when people are seldom convinced by logic, they are convinced by emotion and use logic to justify it after the fact. Im just honest about being motivated by emotion. This writing was a reaction to the marginalization transgender people face within activism and within the regular everyday world. Where the people who are supposed to be on our side instead show solidarity with the people who want us dead and spend their money trying to keep laws protecting trans women from being passed, or working to repeal existing protections. This wasnt to convince someone on the internet with no vested interest in the situation, this was a war cry to other trans women who know exactly what we face and have seen it too. I dont have to prove it to them using logic because they live it every single day just like i do. Im speaking truth to power, not writing a scientific paper. Deal with it.
I was saying It is not a ad hom against you. dismissing a paper because of its author is classic ad hom but not necessarily an attack. I read Ms. Bailey's venom to be directed at you not the book you suggested. Maybe I misread.
makes me right. ;) with that out of the way I am sorry the two of you met is such a unpleasant way. I think you two prolly have a lot to share.
If this was a diner party or a evening at the pub with friends.
(which really is what hubski is at least to me) What I would do here is say to geneusutwerk "this is Laurelai - Laurelai this is geneusutwerk I think both of you have an interest in gender politics" y'all would shake hands, realize the other person is a person, mumble greetings/apologies and prolly hit it off. so whatever the online equivalent of this is.